VAdm Norman - Supply Ship contract: Legal fight

[Oldgateboatdriver]

In your first alternative, Chris, if the PM can already say what he is saying in a matter of fact tone, then that is political interference - because the PM or ANY cabinet member should never be aware of the particulars or the status of any ongoing investigation of any police force or of the review of cases for the purpose of deciding to lay charges or not at the Crown's Attorney's office (whatever they call them these day).

In the second alternative, it would mean that they have already decided to fight him in court over compensation all the way until a final judgement against the government becomes fully executory, meaning very senior public servants in Canada are given less consideration than condemned terrorist in the eyes of the government. to quote a certain president: Sad!

 

[brihard]

Trudeau may not be wrong.

Case 1:  RCMP lays charges.  Case goes to court.

Case 2: RCMP doesn't lay charges.  VAdm Norman takes his case to civil court.

Ding ding ding.

 

[Good2Golf]

In your first alternative, Chris, if the PM can already say what he is saying in a matter of fact tone, then that is political interference - because the PM or ANY cabinet member should never be aware of the particulars or the status of any ongoing investigation of any police force or of the review of cases for the purpose of deciding to lay charges or not at the Crown's Attorney's office (whatever they call them these day).

In the second alternative, it would mean that they have already decided to fight him in court over compensation all the way until a final judgement against the government becomes fully executory, meaning very senior public servants in Canada are given less consideration than condemned terrorist in the eyes of the government. to quote a certain president: Sad!

Perhaps the PM is thinking "eye for an eye"...be part of a leak of Cabinet Confidence, don't be surprised if "Judicial Confidence" also becomes known?

On the second point, the Government is quite unapologetic in taking Veterans to Court, why stop at retired members?

:2c:

Regards
G2G

 

[ModlrMike]

Perhaps the PM is thinking "eye for an eye"...be part of a leak of Cabinet Confidence, don't be surprised if "Judicial Confidence" also becomes known?

On the second point, the Government is quite unapologetic in taking Veterans to Court, why stop at retired serving members?

:2c:

Regards
G2G

FTFY

 

[Kat Stevens]

Funny how the PM has all this faith in system, until it comes to a white Saskatchewan farmer shooting a FN trespasser. Then we “need to do better”.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Funny how the PM has all this faith in system, until it comes to a white Saskatchewan farmer shooting a FN trespasser. Then we “need to do better”.

Solid point you have there...

 

[JesseWZ]

In your first alternative, Chris, if the PM can already say what he is saying in a matter of fact tone, then that is political interference - because the PM or ANY cabinet member should never be aware of the particulars or the status of any ongoing investigation of any police force or of the review of cases for the purpose of deciding to lay charges or not at the Crown's Attorney's office (whatever they call them these day).

That's not entirely true. There are certain offences in the Criminal Code and other Federal Statues which require the Attorney General of Canada's consent in writing to proceed with prosecution. The Attorney General (Minister of Justice) is an elected official, but also responsible for the Public Prosecution Service (PPS) through its director. They are probably dialed in to many different cases, particularly if they are on track to head to the SCC. The separation of powers is between the Executive and the Judiciary, not the Prosecution Service. That being said, it could be a PR nightmare for a government to be micro-managing the decisions of the PPS for a political gain...

 

[Privateer]

Globe and Mail: "Vice-Admiral Mark Norman charged with breach of trust by RCMP"

link: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/rcmp-lay-breach-of-trust-charge-against-vice-admiral-mark-norman/article38260930/

Excerpt:

The RCMP have laid a charge of breach of trust against Vice-Admiral Mark Norman, the former second-in-command of the Canadian Armed Forces, The Globe and Mail has learned.

The charge was filed in an Ottawa court Friday, said a source with direct knowledge of the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

An RCMP investigation of Vice-Adm. Norman was related to the alleged leak of secret federal documents.

Supporters of Vice-Adm. Norman repeatedly called for the RCMP to drop their investigation, saying the officer always acted in Canada's national interest.

The Globe has reached out to his lawyer, Marie Henein. She said a response would be coming "at the appropriate time." ...

 

[McG]

There are now charges:
http://www.rcmp.gc.ca/en/news/2018/rcmp-lays-breach-trust-charge-criminal-investigation

 

[FSTO]

Took them long enough.

Now will this go to trial? Or will there be a settlement?

Who wants to go to court more? Who doesn't want to go to court at all.

Inquiring minds need to know!

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

This is not a civil case, FSTO. There are no "settlement", only plea bargains on punishment if you agree to plead guilty to either the charge or lesser one are possible and even then, the judge has the right to say no and give higher punishment - though it is rare.

In the present case, I suspect that there is no way in hell Mark will ever acknowledge guilt. I could be wrong, but that would not be the man I have known.

I still think that the RCMP has no evidence whatsoever that the admiral benefited from his actions, if any, in any way. Mark (no pun intended) my words: This will turn out for the Libs into an embarrassment similar to the Duffy trial for the conservatives. 

 

[Privateer]

Although in a case such as this, I could imagine the possibility of a deal struck that would, for example, save face for the government and result in (somewhat) acceptable terms of departure for the Admiral, and include a stay or withdrawal of the charge.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

No, Privateer.

Once the charges have been laid by the RCMP, they belong to the Public Prosecutor's Office and anything that would involve the person's career in the government would breach the rule that the Office must be beyond any political interference.

Therefore, striking acceptable terms of departure in exchange for dropping the charge would not only be outside the powers of the prosecutor, but would immediately show the settlement to be political in nature (which the press would interpret as "the government has no case but used its power to prosecute for the sole political aim of arm wrestling a deal with the admiral and putting fear in the next person who would "leak" anything") and therefore, improper use of political power.

 

[Remius]

This part was interesting:

"the RCMP sought evidence through a number of judicial authorizations and a Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty Request from U.S. authorities"

I wonder if that's what took so long.

 

[jollyjacktar]

Let the games begin.

 

[brihard]

I still think that the RCMP has no evidence whatsoever that the admiral benefited from his actions, if any, in any way. Mark (no pun intended) my words: This will turn out for the Libs into an embarrassment similar to the Duffy trial for the conservatives.

Personal gain is not an element of the offense. It’s not necessary to prove he benefitted. While that would potentially be an aggravating factor in sentencing, it needn’t be established to convict.

The laying of the charge means the police have reasonable and probably grounds to believe the accused is guilty of an offense, and it can be reasonably inferred that the crown feels they have a reasonable prospect of conviction, and that pursuing the matter is in the public interest. And now it’s in the hands of the court.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Actually, you are right, Brihard. I hadn't noticed that they specified that the proceeding is under article 122 of the Criminal Code. That article states:

Breach of trust by public officer

122 Every official who, in connection with the duties of his office, commits fraud or a breach of trust is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, whether or not the fraud or breach of trust would be an offence if it were committed in relation to a private person.

This is interesting because the RCMP is not talking about breach of the Security of Information Act anymore, yet that was the act under which they tried to obtain the original search warrant (I leave it to his lawyer to decide how to use that fact of using improper search warrant).

But in any event, they clearly are not saying anymore that he revealed any secret information. As to what the breach is - two things here: First, article 122 is in section of the criminal code titled "Offences Against the Administration of Law and Justice" and if you look at it, it has to do with things like fraud against the crown, bribery of officials and corruption of officials, not with the confidentiality of Cabinet deliberations or decision making process. Second, the "breach of trust" referred to in article 122 itself does not equate, for the public servant, to simply doing something that makes the government lose its trust in the public servant, as in a normal employment relationship, but rather an actual existence of a trust relationship as a result of the clear written law that makes that public servant a "trustee" as defined at article 2 of the Criminal Code, which is then wilfully breached (making it criminal breach of trust). I am very far from convinced that, if no breach of the Security of Information Act can be proven (i.e., the Cabinet confidences are not covered) that there is then an actual "trust" created for that information in the Criminal Code sense.

Anyway, we'll have to see.

 

[garb811]

...
This is interesting because the RCMP is not talking about breach of the Security of Information Act anymore, yet that was the act under which they tried to obtain the original search warrant (I leave it to his lawyer to decide how to use that fact of using improper search warrant).
...

The ITO stated the investigator had reasonable grounds to believe three offences had been commited:

a. Breach of Trust by a public officer contrary to section 122 of the Criminal Code;
b. Wrongful communication of information contrary to section 4(1)(a) of the Security of Information Act; and
c.  Allowing possession of document contrary to section 4(4)(b) of the Security of Information Act.

The investigator additionally noted he was aware of a ruling by a Justice of the Superior Court of Ontario that declared those sections of the Security of Information Act unconstitutional in order to bring it to the attention of the court for consideration prior to the Search Warrant being granted.

No bad faith or issue with the Search Warrant being improper (on those grounds anyway).

 

[Kat Stevens]

Actually, you are right, Brihard. I hadn't noticed that they specified that the proceeding is under article 122 of the Criminal Code. That article states:

Breach of trust by public officer

122 Every official who, in connection with the duties of his office, commits fraud or a breach of trust is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, whether or not the fraud or breach of trust would be an offence if it were committed in relation to a private person.

This is interesting because the RCMP is not talking about breach of the Security of Information Act anymore, yet that was the act under which they tried to obtain the original search warrant (I leave it to his lawyer to decide how to use that fact of using improper search warrant).

But in any event, they clearly are not saying anymore that he revealed any secret information. As to what the breach is - two things here: First, article 122 is in section of the criminal code titled "Offences Against the Administration of Law and Justice" and if you look at it, it has to do with things like fraud against the crown, bribery of officials and corruption of officials, not with the confidentiality of Cabinet deliberations or decision making process. Second, the "breach of trust" referred to in article 122 itself does not equate, for the public servant, to simply doing something that makes the government lose its trust in the public servant, as in a normal employment relationship, but rather an actual existence of a trust relationship as a result of the clear written law that makes that public servant a "trustee" as defined at article 2 of the Criminal Code, which is then wilfully breached (making it criminal breach of trust). I am very far from convinced that, if no breach of the Security of Information Act can be proven (i.e., the Cabinet confidences are not covered) that there is then an actual "trust" created for that information in the Criminal Code sense.

Anyway, we'll have to see.

Based on this, there's a bloody good chance of a major cleanout of both parliament and the senate.

 

[brihard]

Actually, you are right, Brihard. I hadn't noticed that they specified that the proceeding is under article 122 of the Criminal Code. That article states:

Breach of trust by public officer

122 Every official who, in connection with the duties of his office, commits fraud or a breach of trust is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, whether or not the fraud or breach of trust would be an offence if it were committed in relation to a private person.

This is interesting because the RCMP is not talking about breach of the Security of Information Act anymore, yet that was the act under which they tried to obtain the original search warrant (I leave it to his lawyer to decide how to use that fact of using improper search warrant).

But in any event, they clearly are not saying anymore that he revealed any secret information. As to what the breach is - two things here: First, article 122 is in section of the criminal code titled "Offences Against the Administration of Law and Justice" and if you look at it, it has to do with things like fraud against the crown, bribery of officials and corruption of officials, not with the confidentiality of Cabinet deliberations or decision making process. Second, the "breach of trust" referred to in article 122 itself does not equate, for the public servant, to simply doing something that makes the government lose its trust in the public servant, as in a normal employment relationship, but rather an actual existence of a trust relationship as a result of the clear written law that makes that public servant a "trustee" as defined at article 2 of the Criminal Code, which is then wilfully breached (making it criminal breach of trust). I am very far from convinced that, if no breach of the Security of Information Act can be proven (i.e., the Cabinet confidences are not covered) that there is then an actual "trust" created for that information in the Criminal Code sense.

Anyway, we'll have to see.

From what I can find open source on CANLII, the search warrant ITO in fact did refer to S.122 CC as well as two SOIA offenses, so you’re wrong on that part.

Pulling back from this case in specific to search warrants generally, you’re also off base in suggesting that not laying a charge alleged in an ITO renders a subsequently granted search warrant ‘improper’. The threshold for a search warrant is much lower than a charge, lower still than a conviction. A search warrant is an investigative tool used to determine what the facts are. To grant one a JP needs to be satisfied that there are ‘reasonable grounds’ to believe, in short, that what is asked for in the search warrant will furnish evidence of named offenses. It is not unusual for the execution of a search warrant to close some doors and open others. The test of a warrant’s validity is based on whether it was reasonable based on what was known at the time it was granted, subject to full, fair, and frank disclosure in an ITO. I’ve written a handful of ITOs for search warrants or production orders for drug production, drug trafficking, sexual assault, child porn, fraud, and attempted murder files. One of them satisfied me that an offense had not taken place; that did not render my ITO or production order invalid as a result. Rather it allowed me to conclude an investigation and inform someone they were no longer under suspicion of an offense. In other cases they advanced the investigations, sometimes leading in a somewhat different direction or revealing additional offenses.