Home ● Services ● Experience ● Articles ● Quicklaw Articles ● Book Review ● Publications ● Work in Progress ● The Media ● Link Sites ● Contact● Your Suggestions
WHERE EVEN JUSTICE FEARS TO TREAD
This is a follow-up article to Colin Rickards' article of last week on the subject of the disciplinary proceeding against Justice Marvin Morten of Brampton.
Publication bans on court proceedings are becoming more and more regular to the extent that they are almost becoming the rule rather than the exception. So it was actually with a great sigh of relief and extreme surprise that the Ontario Judicial Council rejected the application by Brampton judges to ban publication of their evidence against their brother, Justice Marvin Morten on February 10th, 2006. Pride News Magazine, a first for a community newspaper in the history of Canada, had intervened along with the Toronto
Star, the Globe and mail and The Criminal Lawyers Association to oppose the applied for publication ban by the judges of Brampton. Arguments were heard on February 9th and the decision was delivered on February 10th, 2006. The Toronto Star, The Globe and Mail and the Brampton Guardian published extensive stories on the case on February 10th and 11th, 2006 and The Guardian on February 12th.
Prior to the argument on the motion to ban publication, lawyers for the Interveners, which included myself representing Pride News Magazine, had to undertake not to show anybody the voluminous evidence that was the basis of the application for a ban on publication. We were asked to undertake as officers of the Court to return the bound evidence in the form in which it was given to us--meaning, no surreptitious photocopying. In order to get the evidence at all, we all made the undertakings. After the ruling in our favor, we kept the evidence, in my case, I sent it immediately to storage for safe keeping.
What I read demonstrated that the Brampton courthouse is a cesspool of intrigue and contaminated justice. At the heart of it all is an African Canadian Judge, Justice Marvin Morten. You have read the one-sided coverage in the papers. They hardly quote his side of the ledger. They even hardly quoted my extensive submissions. A lot can be read into the evidence: is Justice Morten a White Knight fighting for justice in a dysfunctional system? Are there any redeeming qualities to the perceived incivility towards his fellow judges and court staff? Is the alleged incivility a necessary of an attempt to prick the pomposity and stuffiness of the justices there? Can there be justice without a maverick within the intestines of the system who exposes its underbelly? Is Justice Morten a loose cannon?
Why was the publication ban sought? Because publishing it, would bring disrepute to the administration of justice in Brampton. So the judges claimed. Judges do not want to be exposed as having thin skins like every one else. They do not want to be seen as petty and scheming beings, just like the rest of us. They do not want to be accused of incompetence amongst other negative qualities of mortal human beings.
Let me put this hearing in context. The complaint against Justice Morten was brought about by some judges in Brampton. My research is that this is the first time Judges of a courthouse have brought a complaint against a fellow judge in the history of Canada. So the stakes are pretty high. Bear in mind that almost 100% of complaints against judges are summarily dismissed. This one has made it to a hearing! It is that same courthouse that produced two judges who jointly frivolously filed a complaint against me to the Law Society of Upper Canada which the Law Society summarily dismissed as unfounded. One of the those judges is centrally implicated in the Morten complaint and justice Morten allegedly either called him "whining whiner" or "Whimpering whiner" or something to that effect. While that judge was busy filing a silly complaint to the Law Society against me, he was at the same time, exactly same time, having a running battle with Justice Morten. The other judge jointly complained about me involving a client I had never represented in my life. That is part of the story of justice, as served and delivered in Brampton.
Once the evidence gets to be called against Justice Morten and against the other Judges, on May 8th, 2006, fasten your seat belts, for you will be hardly ready for the justice ride of your lifetime. And God willing, I hope to be there to cover it all. There is nothing I cherish more than the struggle for justice by whomever and openly. My favorite side is the side of the underdog. It has usually been the underdog or those who fight for the underdog that have shifted the parameters of justice for the better. There has never been a time anywhere where judges have openly been at each other's throats. It will be quite a scene and given what I have seen, it will be a " take no prisoners" slaughter
by either side.
While we were waiting for the hearing to resume on February 9th, Justice Morten commented that he had always appreciated good legal representation which has continued until now. Justice Morten used to be a feared prosecutor before he became a judge.
His sentiment about good legal representation is echoed by everyone whose liberties and professional life have been on the line. It is a sentiment defence counsel know all too well. Justice Morten will need all the good legal representation and some that he deserves, for the empire is striking back really hard. I have assessed that Morten will be equal to the task, among other grounds, he has excellent legal representation in lawyer Robert G. Schipper of Toronto.
Munyonzwe Hamalengwa is a Toronto lawyer. Visit his website at:
Member Of:
Criminal Lawyers Association The Law Society Of Upper Canada
Last Modified: March 2nd, 2006
Home
●
Services
●
Experience
●
Articles
●
Quicklaw Articles
●
Book Review
●
Publications
● Work
in Progress
●
The Media
●
Link Sites
●
Contact ●
Your
Suggestions
Copyright @ 2006 by C&H