Author Topic: VAdm Norman - Supply Ship contract: Legal fight  (Read 233935 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Monsoon

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 24,750
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 802
Re: VAdm Norman - Supply Ship contract: Legal fight
« Reply #850 on: May 08, 2019, 11:18:33 »
Fairly certain the witch hunt will now transition to an administrative one, and that they will seek a 2(a) release.

Offline Petard

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 31,940
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,266
  • Once a gunner, always a gunner
Re: VAdm Norman - Supply Ship contract: Legal fight
« Reply #851 on: May 08, 2019, 11:21:01 »
So by staying the charges they leave him financially devastated with no means to answer or repudiate the claims against him, in a politically charged case.

I doubt this is going away as some would hope

Offline Tcm621

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 12,135
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 743
Re: VAdm Norman - Supply Ship contract: Legal fight
« Reply #852 on: May 08, 2019, 11:29:03 »
Updated CBC article...

The Public Prosecution Service of Canada has dropped a single breach of trust charge against Vice-Admiral Mark Norman.

The Crown said new information came to light thanks to Norman's defence team digging through documents, and that there is no reasonable chance of conviction.

The prosecution said Norman's actions were inappropriate and secretive, but that doesn't mean a crime was committed.

"Inappropriate does not mean criminal," said Barbara Mercier, the lead prosecutor.

She also emphasized there was no political interference in the case.

Norman had been accused of leaking cabinet secrets in relation to a $668-million shipbuilding deal to lease a supply vessel to both an executive at the Davie Shipyard, in Levis, Que., which leased a supply ship to the navy, and to a CBC journalist.

The high-profile, politically charged case has seen the Liberal government face allegations of political interference from both the Opposition Conservatives and Norman's defence team, including Toronto lawyer Marie Henein.

The defence had claimed, in both arguments and court filings, that the Prime Minister's Office and the Privy Council Office had attempted to orchestrate the prosecution of the case.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau declined to comment on the case on his way into a Liberal caucus meeting.

"The process involved in a public prosecution like this is entirely independent of my office," he said. "It's an independent process and we have confidence in the work done by the director of public prosecutions."

So basically they are attempting to say he did it but not give him the chance to defend himself. The only word I can come up with is disgusting.

Offline Rifleman62

    Retired.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 97,890
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,152
Re: VAdm Norman - Supply Ship contract: Legal fight
« Reply #853 on: May 08, 2019, 11:30:31 »
Apparently, Norman is holding a press meeting at the Navy Mess at noon.
Never Congratulate Yourself In Victory, Nor Blame Your Horses In Defeat - Old Cossack Expression

Offline Czech_pivo

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 4,435
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 255
Re: VAdm Norman - Supply Ship contract: Legal fight
« Reply #854 on: May 08, 2019, 11:31:45 »
They won't withdraw as that makes it one little nudge easier for him to sue. By "staying" the government can still smear him and threaten to reintroduce the charges.
Interesting that Leslie was there and was clearly supporting him.

Like a said earlier - looks like someone had some integrity.

Offline Navy_Pete

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 27,285
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 800
Re: VAdm Norman - Supply Ship contract: Legal fight
« Reply #855 on: May 08, 2019, 11:51:35 »
Apparently, Norman is holding a press meeting at the Navy Mess at noon.

Probably going to be a bigger crowd than what you normally see at Gratis Growlies (on Thursday). Think he pops by there regularly after a morning court appearance and is well received.

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 141,420
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,461
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: VAdm Norman - Supply Ship contract: Legal fight
« Reply #856 on: May 08, 2019, 12:17:26 »
Fairly certain the witch hunt will now transition to an administrative one, and that they will seek a 2(a) release.

He just offered to come back to work in the news conference.

Offline Haggis

  • "There ain't no hat badge on a helmet!"
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 64,925
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,780
  • "Oh, what a glorious sight, Warm-reekin, rich!"
Re: VAdm Norman - Supply Ship contract: Legal fight
« Reply #857 on: May 08, 2019, 12:35:58 »
Quote
"Prime Minister Justin Trudeau declined to comment on the case on his way into a Liberal caucus meeting.

"The process involved in a public prosecution like this is entirely independent of my office," he said. "It's an independent process and we have confidence in the work done by the director of public prosecutions."

Bullcrap!  Back in April 2017 and February 2018 the PM stated that the Norman case will inevitably go to court.  This was long before charges were laid.  If that's not an implied order to the RCMP to lay a charge and to the PPSC to pursue it to a conviction I don't know what is.  I suspect the PPSC may have received similar implied direction from the PMO to "make this go away".
Train like your life depends on it.  Some day, it may.

Offline milnews.ca

  • Info Curator, Baker & Food Slut
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Relic
  • *
  • 417,050
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 21,951
    • MILNEWS.ca-Military News for Canadians
Re: VAdm Norman - Supply Ship contract: Legal fight
« Reply #858 on: May 08, 2019, 12:42:28 »
This from the PPSC ...
Quote
Ottawa – May 8, 2019 – Today in the Ontario Court of Justice, the Public Prosecution Service of Canada stayed proceedings against Vice Admiral Mark Norman after it was determined that there was no longer a reasonable prospect of conviction.

In March, 2018, Mr. Norman was charged with one count of breach of trust contrary to s. 122 of the Criminal Code for allegedly leaking confidential information regarding the contract for an interim Auxiliary Replenishment ship with the Canadian shipbuilding company Chantier Davie.

In this case, as in every case prosecuted by the PPSC, only two factors were considered: whether there was reasonable prospect of conviction and, if so, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the charge. It was the conclusion of the PPSC that both criteria were met when the charge was laid. After reviewing further evidence provided to the prosecution, some from applications for records that were not part of the investigation file (third party records) and some volunteered by the defence, the PPSC is no longer of the view that a reasonable prospect of conviction exists. In particular, the Crown has concluded that it will not be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Norman’s conduct in this case amounted to a serious and marked departure from the standards expected of a person in his position of trust.

This decision was based on the evidence, the law, and the principles regarding reasonable prospect of conviction, which are set out in the PPSC Deskbook: https://www.ppsc-sppc.gc.ca/eng/pub/fpsd-sfpg/fps-sfp/tpd/p2/ch03.html.

“No other factors were considered in this decision” said Kathleen Roussel, Director of Public Prosecutions “nor was there any contact or influence from outside the PPSC, including political influence in either the initial decision to prosecute Mr. Norman or in the decision to stay the charge today.”

The principle of prosecutorial independence is key to the PPSC’s mandate. PPSC prosecutors are expected to be objective, independent, and dispassionate in the exercise of their duties, and to exercise those duties in a manner free from any improper influence, including political influence.

– 30 –
“The risk of insult is the price of clarity.” -- Roy H. Williams

The words I share here are my own, not those of anyone else or anybody I may be affiliated with.

Tony Prudori
MILNEWS.ca - Twitter

Offline QV

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 9,505
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 348
Re: VAdm Norman - Supply Ship contract: Legal fight
« Reply #859 on: May 08, 2019, 12:58:34 »
Bullcrap!  Back in April 2017 and February 2018 the PM stated that the Norman case will inevitably go to court.  This was long before charges were laid.  If that's not an implied order to the RCMP to lay a charge and to the PPSC to pursue it to a conviction I don't know what is.  I suspect the PPSC may have received similar implied direction from the PMO to "make this go away".

I'm going to take the Director of PPSC at her word this didn't happen.  I do suspect the PMO was probably briefed on the status of this investigation, and perhaps knew ahead of time that a charge would be filed.  I think it was stupid for the PM to publically comment about Norman inevitably going to court.  But I don't have an opinion one way or the other about the PMO being briefed on the status of an investigation involving someone as significant as the VCDS. 

Offline Petard

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 31,940
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,266
  • Once a gunner, always a gunner
Re: VAdm Norman - Supply Ship contract: Legal fight
« Reply #860 on: May 08, 2019, 13:04:38 »
Considering the reason to not proceed is due to evidence not uncovered during the investigation (which sounds like it should have been), but uncovered by the defence,  why stay the charges and not dismiss them?

Sounds more like an attempt to prevent any recourse for mistakes made either by those that conducted the investigation, or even possibly those in the PPSC in the way the case unfolded and now left to dangle

Offline kratz

    Summer is here...and more rain.

  • Float, Move, Fight
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 263,658
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,328
Re: VAdm Norman - Supply Ship contract: Legal fight
« Reply #861 on: May 08, 2019, 13:10:09 »
I'm glad I donated to his GoFundme last fall. He needed all the support that we could offer.

Fairly certain the witch hunt will now transition to an administrative one, and that they will seek a 2(a) release.

Quote
QR&O Vol 1, Chpt 15, Table 15.01, 2(a)

Unsatisfactory Service: Unsatisfactory Conduct

VAdm Norman was not convicted of anything so the three sub-categories of the reference do not apply.

During the Q&A at the mess, one reporter asked about "possible Administrative Action" against the him. No real answer came out of the question.
VAdm lawyer mentioned in the mess, he team's disclosure to the crown was due to government withholding information from all legal teams. This is nugget of information is not the fault of the prosecution and in mind, clearly indicates how the government dug in for this fight.

It'll be an interesting read as more information becomes available over the next while. I'd like to confirm the charges are withdrawn (dropped) vs stayed.
In one case he's free and clear, but if the charges are stayed, in theory the crown could restart the case within a year, so after the election.



Note: The thread title has been updated to reflect the recent changes.
Quote from: Pipe *General Call*
"Tanning Stations on the flight deck"


Remember, this site is unofficial and privately owned. The site benefits from the presence of current members willing to answer questions.

Offline Eye In The Sky

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 221,350
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,779
    • VP INTERNATIONAL
Re: VAdm Norman - Supply Ship contract: Legal fight
« Reply #862 on: May 08, 2019, 13:16:03 »
So by staying the charges they leave him financially devastated with no means to answer or repudiate the claims against him, in a politically charged case.

I doubt this is going away as some would hope

The MND did confirm today that the government will be picking up VAdm Norman's legal fees, the amount to be determined.
Everything happens for a reason.

Sometimes the reason is you're stupid and make bad decisions.

Offline Cloud Cover

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 38,340
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,073
Re: VAdm Norman - Supply Ship contract: Legal fight
« Reply #863 on: May 08, 2019, 13:28:09 »
I'm going to take the Director of PPSC at her word this didn't happen.  I do suspect the PMO was probably briefed on the status of this investigation, and perhaps knew ahead of time that a charge would be filed.  I think it was stupid for the PM to publically comment about Norman inevitably going to court.  But I don't have an opinion one way or the other about the PMO being briefed on the status of an investigation involving someone as significant as the VCDS.
There is documented evidence on the record including admissions by Crown counsel that (1) they directly met several times with PMO staff, (2) PMO staff offered suggestions to "engineer the outcome" and (3) Jody Wilson Rayboud stated in her testimony that this matter was discussed at Cabinet and that the discussions were privileged. So, was there political instruction-no. Was there attempts at political influence - yes. Were decisions of the PPSC actually influenced--it's too easy to say no.
Living the lean life

Offline Monsoon

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 24,750
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 802
Re: VAdm Norman - Supply Ship contract: Legal fight
« Reply #864 on: May 08, 2019, 14:01:39 »
VAdm Norman was not convicted of anything so the three sub-categories of the reference do not apply.
If you read the third criterion for 2(a) carefully, you can see there's room to use it without a conviction: "By reason of unsatisfactory civil conduct, OR conviction by a civil court..." (emphasis mine).

Maybe they won't go the 2(a) route, but my sense is that the nightmare isn't completely at an end for VAdm Norman just yet.

Offline Navy_Pete

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 27,285
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 800
Re: VAdm Norman - Supply Ship contract: Legal fight
« Reply #865 on: May 08, 2019, 14:10:21 »
My initial thought was that 'no one in DND would be that dumb to not just let this go'.

Then upon reflection, realized when I've thought that in the past, someone in DND has taken the 'hold my beer' approach and proven me wrong.

Offline Haggis

  • "There ain't no hat badge on a helmet!"
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 64,925
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,780
  • "Oh, what a glorious sight, Warm-reekin, rich!"
Re: VAdm Norman - Supply Ship contract: Legal fight
« Reply #866 on: May 08, 2019, 14:14:35 »
If you read the third criterion for 2(a) carefully, you can see there's room to use it without a conviction: "By reason of unsatisfactory civil conduct, OR conviction by a civil court..." (emphasis mine).

I doubt that 15.01 (2)(a) fits because his alleged unsatisfactory conduct was not civil in nature and there is no conviction.  There's still the remote possibility of an AR being conducted which could result in a recommendation for release.  I doubt that, too, now that the MND has agreed to cover his legal fees.

My initial thought was that 'no one in DND would be that dumb to not just let this go'.

Then upon reflection, realized when I've thought that in the past, someone in DND has taken the 'hold my beer' approach and proven me wrong.

I'm sure nobody in NDHQ is sharpening the pitchforks just yet.  The corporate/institutional next steps regarding any career action (positive or negative) will be very, very carefully thought through by the CDSs and MNDs staffs.
Train like your life depends on it.  Some day, it may.

Offline Chief Engineer

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 741,547
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,002
Re: VAdm Norman - Supply Ship contract: Legal fight
« Reply #867 on: May 08, 2019, 14:48:33 »
So what job can VAdm Norman actually have now? I believe he's over 55. He says he wants his old job back, I really can't see that happening knowing all the backstabbing that was done to him. I think he will be retiring soon.
"When your draught exceeds your depth, you are most assuredly aground"

All opinions stated are not official policy of the CF and of a private individual

كافر

Offline FSTO

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 49,120
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,775
Re: VAdm Norman - Supply Ship contract: Legal fight
« Reply #868 on: May 08, 2019, 14:59:43 »
So what job can VAdm Norman actually have now? I believe he's over 55. He says he wants his old job back, I really can't see that happening knowing all the backstabbing that was done to him. I think he will be retiring soon.

He's likely is good to CRA 60 and all you have to do now is at age 59 submit a memo asking for a 1 year extension. At least this is how it works for us non GOFO's. They (GOFO) are likely under totally different TOS.

Offline drunknsubmrnr

  • Semper in Excreto
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 13,105
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 557
Re: VAdm Norman - Supply Ship contract: Legal fight
« Reply #869 on: May 08, 2019, 15:42:34 »
The charges were only stayed, not withdrawn. Probably keep him in the same situation until at least after the election.

https://www.ppsc-sppc.gc.ca/eng/nws-nvs/2019/08_05_19.html

Offline Bruce Monkhouse

    Is a pinball wizard.

  • Lab Experiment #13
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 250,155
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 14,931
  • WHERE IS MY BATON?
    • http://www.canadianbands.com./home.html
Re: VAdm Norman - Supply Ship contract: Legal fight
« Reply #870 on: May 08, 2019, 16:06:10 »
The charges were only stayed, not withdrawn. Probably keep him in the same situation until at least after the election.

https://www.ppsc-sppc.gc.ca/eng/nws-nvs/2019/08_05_19.html

But therein might be more legal action.  The Crown Prosocuter made it very clear "it was over" and "no reasonable grounds to convict".  Maybe the non-interferring office in this non-interferred with the wrong wording??? :tsktsk:
IF YOU REALLY ENJOY THIS SITE AND WISH TO CONTINUE,THEN PLEASE WIGGLE UP TO THE BAR AND BUY A SUBSCRIPTION OR SOME SWAG FROM THE MILNET.CA STORE OR IF YOU WISH TO ADVERTISE PLEASE SEND MIKE SOME DETAILS.

Everybody has a game plan until they get punched in the mouth.

Offline Jarnhamar

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 292,271
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,863
Re: VAdm Norman - Supply Ship contract: Legal fight
« Reply #871 on: May 08, 2019, 17:07:03 »
Quote from: Chief Engineer
  He says he wants his old job back, I really can't see that happening knowing all the backstabbing that was done to him.



There are no wolves on Fenris

Offline Cloud Cover

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 38,340
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,073
Re: VAdm Norman - Supply Ship contract: Legal fight
« Reply #872 on: May 08, 2019, 17:39:06 »
CO of Asterix, plus he's in charge of the nukes. Seriously the man needs some time to heal and to get his family back in a good place. Family first.

And, see attached screen shot. Is this over or just beginning...
« Last Edit: May 08, 2019, 17:56:02 by Cloud Cover »
Living the lean life

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 140,625
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,641
Re: VAdm Norman - Supply Ship contract: Legal fight
« Reply #873 on: May 08, 2019, 19:31:17 »
Actually, under our system, a Stay of Proceedings is the only way for the AG and his/her substitute (which is what the prosecutors are) to actually put a stop to a criminal cases without requiring the permission of the court.

While it is permissible for the proceedings to then be recommenced by mere notice to that effect of the AG or substitute, such recommencement must occur, at maximum, within the first year following the stay. Otherwise, the case simply disappears and it is as if it was never instituted. This way of dying off is exactly what will happen here - so no consequences for the Admiral for the crown choosing this way of disposing of the matter.

A more elegant way would have been to inform the Court that in this matter, the crown would have no evidence to present to the court, which would have led to an acquittal. But the crown doesn't usually do that as it prefers to keep the possibility of new evidence being developed by investigators thus leading to reconsideration of the decision to stay. This, trust me, will not happen here.

Also, remember that even being declared not guilty in a criminal case, which is quite different than being declared innocent - which in our system of criminal law we do not do - has no bearing on administrative proceedings, which must then stand on the merits of the actual evidence entered in such proceedings. Only a finding of guilt becomes a binding fact on administrative bodies.

In any case, the mere declaration by the prosecutor that there are no reasonable chances of success in the present case would make it difficult for anyone to re-open the proceedings without strong showing of new and previously unavailable evidence.

Finally, as to his return to his old job, remember that GOFO's serve at the crown's discretion. Unlike soldiers/airmen or seamen in the course of their contract, they can be asked by the crown to step down at any time - so long as the crown can bear the political optics of such decision. In the present case, if the MND has already stated they would pay the Admiral's legal bill (and pay him any payments he would have otherwise received but missed on due to this fracas, I hope) and since the Admiral stated that such action and an apology from the government is all he wanted, it would be a nice gesture and easy closing for the government to actually apologize and arrange for his return at his old job, but so that he could then officially and honourably retire.   

Offline Monsoon

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 24,750
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 802
Re: VAdm Norman - Supply Ship contract: Legal fight
« Reply #874 on: May 08, 2019, 19:44:51 »
And, see attached screen shot. Is this over or just beginning...
That (the tweet) makes sense of what happened today. Remember that the prosecutor herself didn’t get to see the contents of the PMO emails until they were recently unsealed by the judge. As soon as she could read them, she realized the PMO had been interfering with witnesses and that it scotched her whole case. I have a sneaking suspicion that this interference/direction to witnesses is what Leslie was going to testify to.

In the present case, if the MND has already stated they would pay the Admiral's legal bill (and pay him any payments he would have otherwise received but missed on due to this fracas, I hope) and since the Admiral stated that such action and an apology from the government is all he wanted, it would be a nice gesture and easy closing for the government to actually apologize and arrange for his return at his old job, but so that he could then officially and honourably retire.   
Nope, he said he looks forward to his “immediate reinstatement” as VCDS and that he has a story to tell and that he intends to tell it. Stand by for much, much more to come.