The Canadian Judicial Council Responds To My Complaint

Regular readers of this blog may recall a post I wrote this past June about an unsettling experience I had at a local grocery story. It was there that my wife and I witnessed the shocking and distasteful behaviour of Ontario Superior Court of Justice Antonio (Toni) Skarica, who was proudly sportng a pro-Trump t-shirt that read, Donald Trump - Make America Great Again - 2016.

Given the rules of impartiality that govern justices in this country, I wrote a letter of complaint to the Canadian Judicial Council describing the experience in full. Since some of the content of that letter is included in the Council's decision, I will not reproduce it here, but what follows is the Council's response to my complaint, which was delayed because they also required that my wife write a letter attesting to the fact that it was indeed Skarica before they deigned to investigate.

In converting this letter from the PDF original, some of the formatting was lost; I have done my best to restore it here:

Personal and Confidential

CJC File: 16-0160

2 September 2016

Dear Mr Warwick:

I am responding to your correspondence dated 12 June 2016 in which you make a complaint against the Honourable Antonio Skarica of the Superior Court of Justice of Ontario.

In accordance with the Review Procedures of the Canadian Judicial Council (Council) I referred your letter to the Honourable J. Michael MacDonald, Chief Justice of Nova Scotia and Chairperson of the Judicial Conduct Committee. Chief Justice MacDonald requested comments from Justice Skarica and from the Honourable Heather J. Smith, Chief Justice of the Superior Court of Justice of Ontario. After carefully reviewing your complaint, Chief Justice MacDonald has directed me to provide you with this response.

The mandate of the Council in matters of judicial conduct is to determine whether a recommendation should be made to the Minister of Justice, after a formal investigation, that a judge be removed from office by Parliament. The reasons for removal are set out in the Judges Act and address situations where a judge has become incapacitated or disabled from performing the duties of a judge. This can be as a result of age or infirmity, misconduct, a failure to execute the duties of the position, or being in a position incompatible with the functions of a judge.

It is important to note that the Councll is not a court and cannot intervene in the court process.

In your correspondence, you indicate that you saw Justice Skarica wearing a t-shirt promoting Donald Trump’s candidacy and that you were both shocked and appalled. You
allege that Justice Skarica is clearly advocating for a man who is a serial liar, racist and demagogue, which raises a number of concerns. You ask how can a man who embraces a politician opposed to Muslims and Mexicans, a man who believes in dividing society into 'winners and losers,' be seen as an impartial arbiter of human lives as he renders judgment on them from the bench.

In commenting the complaint, Justice Skarica indicates that he has not endorsed Mr Trump either publicly or privately in any way and does not know him. Justice Skarica has not contributed any monies to his campaign either directly or indirectly. He has not been involved in the Trump campaign in any manner whatsoever. He writes that he is, however, a student of history and on occasion, have collected memorabilia items over the years that he considers to be turning points in history. It is in that context that Justice Skarica received the t-shirt from his brother who had visited Washington. It was never Justice Skarica’s intention to make the shirt a standard part of his wardrobe but rather to keep it as an item of memorabilia. At one point, Justice Skarica put the shirt on earlier in the day to show a friend and later that day went shopping without thinking too much about it. He does not intend to wear the t-shirt in public in any meaningful way. Moreover, Justice Skarica vehemently denies any suggestion that he is racist.

Chief Justice MacDonald notes that Council’s publication Ethical Principles for Judges provides that judges should refrain from conduct such as membership in groups or organizations or participation in public discussion which, in the mind of a reasonable, fair minded and informed person, would undermine confidence in a judge’s impartiality with respect to issues that could come before the courts. The issue is therefore the extent of the involvement of Justice Skarica in Donald Trump’s campaign to the US presidency, if any, and whether it could reasonably “put in question the judge’s impartiality on an issue that could come before the court.”

First, Chief Justice MacDonald advises that impartiality is key to the judicial process and is presumed. As pointed out by the Supreme Court of Canada in the Cojocaru v. British Columbia Women’s Hospital and Health Centre case, this presumption of impartiality carries considerable weight, and the law does not easily evoke the possibility of bias in a judge, whose authority depends upon that presumption. Second, Chief Justice MacDonald is satisfied with the response of Justice Skarica indicating that he has no involvement whatsoever with Mr Trump or the Republican, that he has not contributed any monies to his campaign either directly or indirectly, and that he is not involved in any way, shape or form in Donald Trump’s campaign for the US presidency. Chief Justice MacDonald also accepts that Justice Skarica has no intention of wearing this or similar shirts in public again. Chief Justice MacDonald is therefore satisfied that there is nothing that could put in question Justice Skarica's impartiality on an issue that could come before his court. Chief Justice MacDonald concludes that your complaint is unfounded. Chief Justice MacDonald is of the view that the issues you raise do not warrant further consideration by the Canadian Judicial Council pursuant to its mandate under the Judges Act. Accordingly, he has directed me to close your file with this reply.

Yours sincerely,

Norman Sabourin
Executive Director and Senior General Council

While I did not really expect a result different from the decision rendered by the Canadian Judicial Council, I am gratified that at least justice Skarica had to account for his strange behaviour, and I think it is safe to say he has learned a valuable lesson from my complaint. I think it likely that henceforth, the Trump t-shirt will be brought out only for gatherings of close family and ultra-conservative friends.

A Short Programming Note

I'll be offline for the next few days as I go off on a small adventure with a couple of my retired buddies. If the weather cooperates, we will be viewing the night sky up north. If it doesn't, well, I don't know what mischief we'll get up to.

See you soon.

A Boost To The Spirit

Fifty years ago, Star Trek - The Original Series - began. As a young person at the time, I was quite enthralled by a series that depicted a time when humanity had apparently solved its myriad problems on Earth and had expanded outward to seek out new life and new civilizations. Although Earth was never shown, one was left with the distinct impression that it had evolved into the closest thing to a Utopia, where harmony and understanding prevailed. The series served as a soothing counterbalance to the tumultuous nature of the Sixties, with war, race divisions, crime and poverty being our reality.

I am far from the somewhat optimistic lad I was 50 years ago, but visiting Word On The Street always reminds me of the idealized world that Star Trek presented: thousands of people milling about, examining, buying and discussing books, a diverse crowd both racially and demographically, citizens engaged and knowledgeable about the world. A hint of Utopia, one I found uplifting in part due to the fact that graybeards like me, although quite sizably represented as we tend to be, were flanked by much younger people for whom knowledge, information and engagement on issues are also very important. it gives me some hope.

We spent three hours at The Star tent, and were fortunate to have arrived early enough for seats, as it turned out to be standing room only. I won't bore you with the details of what was discussed, but I will mention the response I got to a question I asked of Chantal Hebert, Paul Wells and Bruce Campion-Smith (Ottawa bureau chief), who were discussing Trudeau's first year in power. They suggested that with the ousting of Harper, many Canadians feet they can get back to their 'normal' lives for the next four years, given that the polarization and divisiveness of the old regime ended with Harper's ouster. I asked if that is likely to continue, given that issues such as CETA and pipelines will likely prove controversial for the government. The answer that I got is one I am not sure I agree with. The feeling was that few people follow free trade agreements like Ceta, and that pipeline issues are primarily of concern to those living in British Columbia.

I hope they are wrong. Judging by the very large attendance at the greatly expanded Star tent, they may just be.

In any event, I leave you with this letter from today's Star. Clearly, some people are thinking about the issues:

It’s not like we don’t know how trade deals work. And NAFTA is small potatoes compared to CETA and TPP.

While we sit complacently, the Liberals have dispatched Chrystia Freeland to save CETA from wavering European politicians faced with voters actively taking to the streets in displeasure about more compromise on jobs, services, taxes and the environment, all in the name of further enriching the 1 per cent.

Under the guise of global trade have we not lost enough well-paying permanent jobs and seen a decline in important services such as education and health to know we are getting taken to the cleaners, again? Are the unimaginable billions already hidden in tax havens not sufficient for the proponents of one sided trade deals?

Shame on the Liberals who promised change. Shame on Chrystia Freeland, author of Plutocrats: the Rise of the New Global Super Rich and shame on Canadians for not speaking up loud enough to be heard.

Nancy Stevens, Institute of Technical Trades, Toronto

A Reading Recommendation

Heading off to Word on the Street this morning, so I only have enough time to strongly recommend that you read Marie's post at A Puff of Absurdity on protecting our water sources.

It is an issue of vital importance and one that we should all be very, very concerned about.

On Nestle's Unslakeable Thirst

I have written previously about the deplorable government 'stewardship' of our natural resources that allows rapacious companies like Nestle to take Ontario's groundwater for literally pennies as it makes obscene profits on bottle water.

Unfortunately, the story keeps getting worse.

Corporate giant Nestlé continued its privatization creep on Thursday as it won approval to take over another Canadian community's water supply, claiming it needed the well to ensure "future business growth."

Nestlé purchased the well near Elora, Ontario from Middlebrook Water Company last month after making a conditional offer in 2015, the Canadian Press reports.

In August, the Township of Centre Wellington made an offer to purchase the Middlebrook well site to protect access to the water for the community. Consequently, the multinational—which claimed it had no idea the community was its competitor—waived all its conditions and matched the township's offer in order to snag the well for itself.

Happily, this is not going unnoticed by the Council of Canadians, which has proposed a boycott of the company, one that I encourage everyone to sign. Part of the boycott reads,

"Groundwater resources will not be sufficient for our future needs due to drought, climate change, and over-extraction. Wasting our limited groundwater on frivolous and consumptive uses such as bottled water is madness. We must not allow groundwater reserves to be depleted for corporate profit."

For her part the extraordinarily unpopular Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne, who has often acted as if she is surprised by Nestle's pillaging, is now sounding a cautious note.

“As we look at the water bottling industry, that has to be a question because we’re talking about what we could argue is our most precious resource,” she said.

“There is much pressure on our water, so as we have this discussion about our water, the status of and the treatment of water bottling companies, that needs to be taken into consideration.”

Hardly a stinging rebuke.

For its part, Nestle has this to say:

Nestle, which has 2,500 employees in Ontario, has said it is prepared to pay more if rates were increased, but only if all companies with water-taking permits face the higher fees.

The fact that this multinational company feels free to stipulate conditions on government decisions tells you all you need to know about who is really running the show, doesn't it?

UPDATED: I Know It Is Unseemly To Make Fun Of The Stupid

.... but sometimes I lack self-control.



UPDATE: Thanks to The Mound, for sending me the link to this video:

Drowning In Our Excesses

The news is alarming, the statistics incredible, the implications dire. A convergence of factors, not the least of which is climate change, is causing rapid ice-sheet melting in Greenland. It is estimated to be losing 40 trillion pounds more ice per year than had been previously thought.

We will soon be drowning in our excesses.