CJC
Continued From Page 1
the Douglas inquiry members was
present at the earlier inquiries.
“I must say, I’m not amused — I
completely reject the criticisms of
independent counsel” in the ruling, Earl Cherniak of Toronto’s
Lerners told The Lawyers Weekly.
Cherniak presented the misconduct allegations and evidence to a CJC inquiry that culminated in the resignation of
Superior Court Justice Paul Cosgrove in 2009 for his conduct
during a high-profile and grisly
murder trial.
Douglas Hunt, the independent counsel at the earlier inquiry
into the conduct of Superior
Court Justice Ted Matlow, also
said the Douglas inquiry was
“quite wrong” to suggest that he
might have failed to fully present
the case against the judge.
He pointed out the Matlow
inquiry itself “certainly didn’t
appear to have any concern that
the case for removal had not been
fully presented, so I don’t know
what [the Douglas inquiry rul-ing] is talking about,” Hunt said.
(The Matlow inquiry panel
recommended that the judge be
Cherniak
Paliare
kicked off the bench for crusading against a real estate development near his home, but the CJC
decided in 2008 that a stiff public
reprimand would suffice.)
The Douglas inquiry said in its
ruling that concern within the
CJC that independent counsel
might not have put forward the
strongest possible submissions
for the removal of Cosgrove and
Justice Matlow sparked changes
in 2010 to its policy on the role of
independent counsel.
“There was a concern that
independent counsel may not
have fully appreciated that their
role was to act as an advocate to
present the case against the
judge,” explained the Douglas
inquiry, chaired by Alberta Chief
Justice Catherine Fraser.
We want to hear from you!
Email us at: comments@lawyersweekly.ca
Different
Partial codes not personal says IPC
rules for
youths
Offenders
Continued From Page 2
Custody
Continued From Page 5
stantial period of time in cus-
tody before sentencing.”
While he said the issue has
been brought before other prov-
incial courts, “I see other prov-
inces glomming on to this and
seeing it’s the logical way to do it.”
In contrast, if it were an adult
case, pre-trial custody would not
count toward parole. But on a 1:1
basis for the nine months, it
would leave 12 months in a
21-month sentence and the adult
would be eligible for parole after
four months.
Bala said youth sentencing
and detention—including credit
for detention—are governed by
different legislation and principles, so there are no implications
for adult sentencing.
The 2:1 credit for adult custody
was abolished in 2010, Bala said.
He also noted current suggested amendments to the YCJA
do not consider minimum sentences for youths. n
We want to hear from you!
approach makes it impossible to
predict when the threshold will
be crossed, when a subset of
information will cause the harm
that the confidentiality require-
ments [in Christopher’s Law]
were enacted to prevent.”
Even if the published informa-
tion does not precisely identify a
sex offender, Blake said, that per-
son may have a negative emo-
tional reaction to the geographic
identifiers.
In a responding factum, the
IPC urges the Appeal Court not
to intervene in the decision of
the Divisional Court, which dismissed the ministry’s application for a judicial review of the
commissioner’s order regarding
the postal-code data. The IPC
maintains that a statistical record listing how many sex offenders live in a specific area encompassed by the first three
characters of an Ontario postal
code does not qualify as “
personal information” under the
Freedom of Information and
Protection of Privacy Act, and is
therefore not exempt from disclosure under the terms of the
Act. The IPC also disputes the
ministry’s contention that the
information should be protected
The Commissioner
found that disclosure
of the information
would contribute to an
informed citizenry and
promote public safety…
“
William Challis, lawyer
by the law-enforcement exemptions in the Act.
“The only information to be
disclosed is non-identifying sta-
tistical information by geographic
area…The Commissioner found
that disclosure of the information
would contribute to an informed
citizenry and promote public
safety by making residents aware
of areas in which the risks posed
by a preponderance of sex offend-
ers may be higher, so that they
might take appropriate pre-
cautions,” lawyer William Challis
writes in the IPC’s factum, citing
no reasonable expectation that
any individual offender’s home
address could be identified
through the postal-code data.
in law enforcement, the IPC
stated in its original decision,
because it “does not entail sub-
stantive disclosure of the sensi-
tive and highly detailed informa-
tion about offenders.”
This is not the first time a dis-
pute over postal-code data has
come before the IPC. In the mid-
1990s, the Ministry of the Attor-
ney General blocked a Freedom of
Information request for access to
the first three characters of the
postal codes of all residents who
sat on a jury in Metropolitan
Toronto in 1994, citing confiden-
tiality provisions in the Juries Act.
The IPC ultimately determined
the ministry did not have custody
or control over the jury rolls and
consequently, their contents fell
outside the scope of Freedom of
Information legislation. n
