We shall see

Share Button

Hearings resumed at 0930 hours (9:30 am) this morning, Tuesday, 16 December 2008.

Detective Inspector Pat Hall is back on the stand.  OPP lawyer Diane Lahaie finished doing damage control, meandering through her cross examination and instructing Justice Normand Glaude on the fine points of registers.

Lunch break now.  Bill Carroll (OPPA) started doing his damage control for non-commissioned OPP officers. He will resume his work at 2 pm.

On deck and waiting somewhere in the Weave Shed is Deputy Commissioner Chris Lewis – Ontario Provincial Police

Witnesses scheduled to testify this week after Lewis are:

Murray MacDonald, Crown Attorney – Ministry of the Attorney General

Donald Johnson, (former) Crown Attorney – Ministry of the Attorney General

 Tick. Tock.  Tick Tock. 


Another full day lost yesterday. 

Justice Glaude was weather bound in Sudbury Ontario.  

That raises another question. Why, on top of all Glaude’s real and perceived conflicts, did the Attorney General choose a commissioner from Northern Ontario to conduct an inquiry in Cornwall, Ontario?  I do beleive that knowing the probability of inclement weather in Canadian winters, and allowing the commissioner to run back and forth between Cornwall and home on weekends is asking for this kind of delay.

Why Glaude?  From Sudbury of all places?

Regardless, here we are.  The AG has ordered the ax to fall on the inquiry end January 2009.  The AG witnesses, who just happen to be tail-end-Charlie as witnesses –  are on deck to testify.  Christmas recess starts on Friday.  Hearings resume 06 January 2009.  Most if not all AG witnesses could easily be on the stand for a minimum of 10 days.  I think I heard that 13 AG witnesses are scheduled.

January should prove interesting.  In Canada January is not a month known for balmy weather.

That raises another question: Will Glaude stay put in Cornwall for the month of January to ensure there are no further unnecessary delays?


Not the articles re Julian Fantino and Brian Gover.

Julian Fantino, now commissioner of the OPP, was the first person to whom Perry Dunlop delivered documents regarding the Cornwall scandal and cover-up.  At the time Fantino was Chief of the London Police Service.  He has since, courtesy of Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty, moved to the top of the OPP ladder.

Gover is Glaude’s lawyer.  Gover has acted on Glaude’s behalf in most if not all inquiry sorti’s to the Ontario Divisional court.

Of greater interest, it was Gover who  did Glaude’s dirty work in going after Perry at Ontario Divisional Court.

Now we find that Gover represents Julian Fantino in a fruckus over Police Service Act misconduct charges against two OPP officers.

As I understand this one, here’s the way it goes…

(1)  Seems that in early October 2008 Fantino took the stand to testify at the proceedings involving these two OPP officers.  After a break he came back – his testimony had changed.  The word in the media is that Fantino’s testimony didn’t gel with the testimony the prosecutor – Gover – had anticipated from Fantino, and that Fantino went back and tried to change his testimony. 

(2) The inference is that Gover tipped Fantino, and Fantino went back in with the intent of changing his testimony.

(3) The adjudicator, Justice Leonard Montgomery, ordered Fantino to leave the room.

(4) Gover and Fantino took exception to comments made by Montgomery.

(5) Gover asked Montgomery to recuse himself.  Gover threatened to apply for a judicial review if Montgomery didn’t recuse himself ( “I can tell you quite frankly Mr. Adjudicator that in the event that you do not remove yourself I will be bringing an application for judicial review with the support of the Attorney General’s office.”)  

Gover’s claim was that Montgomery’s comments were paramount to accusing Fantino of misconduct – that they had left a “stain” on Fantino’s reputation and were grounds for a reasonable apprehension of bias.

Note that Gover told the adjudicator he, Gover,  would bring the application for review with the support of the Attorney General’s office.  Gover has claimed he had discussions with and support of senior lawyers in the AG’s office.

(6) Montgomery refused to step down.

(7) Montgomery has accused Gover of trying to “intimidate” and “pressure” him.
(8) Fantino has called the accusations against him as “hysterical nonsense.”

(9) Defence for the two OPP lawyers accused Fantino of trying to derail the proceedings and delay his testimony.

(10) The matter was raised in the legislature by NDP leader Howard Hampton: “This sounds like the Ministry of the Attorney General is interfering in this hearing.”

(11) Gover filed application for a judicial review.  He requested a stay in proceedings.

(12)  Fantino lost.  The matter was heard at Divisional Court by Justice Janet Wilson. Wilson ruled in part that:  “It was inappropriate to bring a motion prior to completion of the cross-examination and re-examination of Commissioner Fantino.”

According to media reports

“Wilson also cited an Ontario Court of Appeal decision in another case that indicates Fantino had no legal grounds to even take the matter to court. ‘It appears that bringing a motion to stay at this very unusual point in the abuse process during the cross-examination of Commissioner Fantino may be an attempt to circumvent the clear ruling and impact of the (Appeal Court) decision.’”

(13) Attorney General Chris Bentley denies the AG was supporting the Gover-Fantino motions for a judicial review.

(14)  The disciplinary hearings were ordered to resume with Montgomery at the helm. Fantino will be back on the hot seat.

Intriguing or what?  Gover going to bat for Julian Fantino, the AG’s office “allegedly” in discussion with Gover on the way ahead at a disciplinary hearing, Gover going to bat for Glaude to get Perry, the AG signing Glaude’s pay cheque, the AG funding the Cornwall Police Service at the inquiry through the back door, and Fantino eventually turning Perry’s materials over to the OPP despite knowledge that Perry did not trust the OPP.

Honest to goodness it’s beginning to look like they’re all in bed together.   Perhaps  more bods to add that one big happy family   – and more questions regarding the Ontario AG’s office and the whole notion of judicial “independence” and “impartiality”?


I have heard that the BC decision regarding prosecutorial independence is being reserved. It may not be released until January.  Wonder what impact if any that will have in the Weave Shed once the AG witnesses are up? 

I believe in one instance in BC the claim of prosecutorial privilege was overruled because the judge ruled it had been waived when the AG called for an inquest.  However, if I have it right I also understand that in that case the judge ruled that there would be limits to probing and cross-examination of a Crown prosecutor’s evidence. 

Since the Ontario AG commissioned this inquiry I would think that as things stand that means that the AG has waived claims of the sanctity of prosecutorial privilege, but they may well be jumping up an down claiming there there are strict limits to what evidence can be evoked from a Crown. 

We shall see 🙂  Remember of course that every argument over this that or the other thing is time consuming, and that the AG has already seen to it that there is little to no time left for AG witnesses to testify as it is. 

Yes, we shall see….

Enough for now,



This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply