ARE OUR LOCAL COURTS PRACTITIONERS OF "HOME COOKING"?

I had been planning on giving details and specifics today of last Thursday's TAG (Technical Advisory Group) meeting held in Woolwich Council Chambers. That may have to wait until Monday.

Yesterday I was advised and so downloaded a Decision of the Court of Appeal For Ontario. The Decision was dated yesterday and the parties are Donovan v. Waterloo Regional Police Services Board File number C66718. The fuller title is BETWEEN Kelly Donovan and Waterloo Regional Police Services Board and Bryan Larkin.

The Ontario Court of Appeal have essentially thrown out a decision made by our local (Kitchener) Superior Court of Justice dated March 20, 2019 . The judge then was Justice Michael T. Doi. The three judges for the Ontario Court of Appeal agreed with our local judge on only one point that being that the appellant's (Ms. Donovan) did not plead a tenable claim against Chief Bryan Larkin. I do not find this point to be terribly weighty as Ms. Donovan did not have legal representation and hence was self-represented. Really who the hell can afford to hire lawyers on an ongoing basis? Oh right, all our public (i.e. taxpayer funded) institutions can. School Boards, police, municipalities etc.. It really makes for an uneven playing field which is exactly what those parties want. Regardless the Appeal Court judges have allowed Ms. Donovan to amend her claim against Chief Bryan Larkin.

On all the other points the Appeal Court seem unimpressed with the local judge's reasoning and rationale for his decisions. The Appeal Court judges state "it is not plain and obvious that..." the case law (Fleming) presented by the Waterloo Regional Police Board's lawyers actually stands in the appellant's (Donovan) way. The three judges also stated that "Nor is it plain and obvious ..." that Chief Larkin's affidavit in a related case is subject to absolute privilege. The three Appeal Court judges also state "it is not plain and obvious..." that the appellant's actions contravene the exclusive jurisdiction of a certain provincial agency.

The Appeal Court has quite forcibly and bluntly rejected our local Superior Court's decision from last March. Is this either unusual or rare? Or is this the norm when our local judicial luminaries are dealing with self-proclaimed "big shots" and local movers and shakers? Once again are our school boards, police departments, municipalities, and other institutions being given biased and favoured treatment by our local courts? I only ask because very recently I have seen Justice Gerald Taylor (Superior Court) in Kitchener make a bizarre decision favouring Woolwich Township against Mr. Rattasid, a local business owner and entrepreneur. It seems that the local judge feels that it is perfectly acceptable for a municipality to run a below ground water line across private property without benefit of permission, negotiation, or expropriation and not even having it marked on the property deed. Also of course I personally saw the blatant disgrace of the behaviour, actions, words, and decision of the dishonourable Justice Robert Reilly (Superior Court) as he rejected the uncontroverted testimony of multiple parents in my own case before Superior Court (1996-1999).

Now three cases are not exactly a tsunami of evidence. That lack of evidence of course is exactly what our courts survive and thrive on to protect their reputations. Of course lawyers routinely pleading cases would have a very good idea as to the inherent injustices available to the public. Especially the unconnected, non rich, non "big shot" public who dare to confront our local financially well-heeled institutions. However do you think that lawyers whose income is derived from representing clients in front of these courts and judges are going to ever publicly advise that our courts are less than lily white? Less than perfect? Biased in favour of the well connected and well known major institutions throughout Waterloo Region? I think not.