VAdm Norman - Supply Ship contract: Legal fight

[dapaterson]

My guess (not having seen the documents) is that it's probably a one page cover letter quoting legal advice, followed by 59 pages of legal advice.

 

[FJAG]

My guess (not having seen the documents) is that it's probably a one page cover letter quoting legal advice, followed by 59 pages of legal advice.

It was probably one page of legal advice with a 58 page invoice for services rendered.  ;D

 

[The Bread Guy]

Aaaaaaaaaand for the record, this from the DOJ info-machine ...

The Department of Justice Canada issued the following statement about the Her Majesty The Queen v Mark Norman case:

“We would like to take this opportunity to clarify information relevant to this case and the third party document disclosure process currently underway, in response to media reports.

At the outset of this process, it was made clear in court that government organizations would be providing all responsive documents to the court who would review and assess claims of solicitor-client and litigation privilege and public interest immunity, including Cabinet confidences and privacy interests. The Government of Canada is committed to a transparent, cooperative, responsive and coordinated process in submitting documents to the court. The Department of Justice is doing this on behalf of seven government organizations to ensure the court and counsel have all of the relevant documents needed before going to trial.

Following a court appearance on March 28, 2019, some media reports imply that the Clerk of the Privy Council has additional documents that have not yet been provided to the court. However, as we have stated in court, the Clerk has provided to the court all documents that he has in his possession in response to the series of subpoena requests, including the document that was the subject of media reports yesterday.

Media reports also state that documents provided by the Clerk were heavily redacted. These redactions were applied by legal counsel. Such redactions are consistent with the normal process applied to all documents across the seven implicated organizations where the process for the identification, review and production of documents follows a two-stage process set out by the Supreme Court of Canada case of R v O’Connor. The final say on these redactions and relevance of the documents rests with the court.

To be clear, a consistent process is in place and is being followed to respond to requests that have been made and any additional requests to review documents, redact them in accordance with the law, and submit them to the court for review. To date, 7,032 documents have been provided to the judge for review and we continue to review approximately 1,000 remaining documents. We expect to submit these remaining documents to the court in the coming weeks.

This fact sheet* provides more information on how the document disclosure process works and the department remains open to providing information on its role and how the process continues to unfold.”

* - Fact sheet attached

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

"At the outset of this process, it was made clear in court that government organizations would be providing all responsive documents to the court who would review and assess claims of solicitor-client and litigation privilege and public interest immunity, including Cabinet confidences and privacy interests. The Government of Canada is committed to a transparent, cooperative, responsive and coordinated process in submitting documents to the court. The Department of Justice is doing this on behalf of seven government organizations to ensure the court and counsel have all of the relevant documents needed before going to trial."

Now, there's a bureaucratic way of saying "we will abide by the law" if I ever saw one. As if they had a choice but to provide the documents they are required by law to provide the court!

 

[The Bread Guy]

Now, there's a bureaucratic way of saying "we will abide by the law" if I ever saw one.

Accuracy, Brevity, Clarity - pick any two  ;D

 

[MilEME09]

CTV is reporting that outgoing MP Andrew Leslie will be testifying against the goverment at Normans trial.

 

[Czech_pivo]

CTV is reporting that outgoing MP Andrew Leslie will be testifying against the goverment at Normans trial.

Someone with some integrity.  Nice.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Or a subpoena

 

[Czech_pivo]

Or a subpoena

Cynic -

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Cynic -

I'd soooooo love to be proven incorrect.

 

[Cloud Cover]

Apparently he informed the PM over a year ago that he would be testifying, prior to his decision to not run in the forthcoming election.

 

[Kat Stevens]

Someone with some integrity.  Nice.

HAHAHAHAAAA!!!! Oh, you were serious? HAHAHAHAAAAA!!

 

[Edward Campbell]

I'm not sure what to make of this ... maybe there's not very much of substance.

It is very possible that LGen (ret'd) Leslie agreed, a year ago, to be a character witness, if required. He was, after all, VAdm Norman's boss on the transformation project and they were colleagues. If that's the case he would have told the PMO that he had been asked to give supportive testimony and the PMO would, I think, have had no objection ... Mark Norman is one of Andrew Leslie's constituents, after all, and it might even look good, from a public relations point of view, to have a Liberal MP testifying for VAdm Norman: "see," the government's propaganda arm could say, "we want to give VAdm Norman every possible opportunity to defend himself."

It is also possible that LGen Leslie might be asked to give "expert" testimony about the way that very senior officers deal with the government, especially the PCO, and with contractors.

The notion that LGen (ret'd) Leslie might 'spill the beans' on what happened inside government seems, to me, a bit far-fetched. First, although he was appointed to the Privy Council ~ which brings that whole "oath" thing into play ~ he was not in the cabinet; and, second, even if he had been a minister it is unlikely that this, the decision to interfere in the Davie contract and then the decision to go after VAdm Norman, would have been a cabinet-level issue ~ perhaps it got discussed in the Treasury Board, which is a committee of cabinet, but, more likely, it, especially the decision to charge Mark Norman, was discussed only in the PMO and PCO.

My  :2c:

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

The notion that LGen (ret'd) Leslie might 'spill the beans' on what happened inside government seems, to me, a bit far-fetched. First, although he was appointed to the Privy Council ~ which brings that whole "oath" thing into play ~ he was not in the cabinet; and, second, even if he had been a minister it is unlikely that this, the decision to interfere in the Davie contract and then the decision to go after VAdm Norman, would have been a cabinet-level issue ~ perhaps it got discussed in the Treasury Board, which is a committee of cabinet, but, more likely, it, especially the decision to charge Mark Norman, was discussed only in the PMO and PCO.

My  :2c:

Actually, ERC, I would hope you are completely wrong on that one. I would hope that the decision to charge VAdm Norman was made and discussed only at the level of the independent crown attorneys and within the "professionals" of the offices of Federal prosecutors. Anything else, any decision making at the political or even higher civil service level (PCO) would be entirely inappropriate and actually make the decision political. That would in itself justify a judge to declare mistrial.

 

[MilEME09]

Which could then open up the floor to a potential lawsuit to the GoC for ruining the man's career for political purposes

 

[Journeyman]

... entirely inappropriate and actually make the decision political.

    ???  You say that like there's some doubt....

Which could then open up the floor to a potential lawsuit to the GoC for ruining the man's career for political purposes

Trying to picture the Admiral receiving a $10.5M settlement.  Can't.

 

[FSTO]

AFAIK, VAdm Norman wants a complete apology from the GOC and his legal fees paid for. Anything would be gravy.

 

[Haggis]

AFAIK, VAdm Norman wants a complete apology from the GOC and his legal fees paid for. Anything would be gravy.

Sadly, he will get neither from this government. As I posted earlier, the PM situated the estimate by saying, well before the VAdm was charged, that he expected this case to go to trial.  One can infer from this statement that the PM also expects a vigorous prosecution that will result in a conviction, either in a court of law or in the court of public opinion.  Given the SNC Lavalin debacle, the PM cannot be seen to lose to the VAdm.

 

[Kirkhill]

Actually, ERC, I would hope you are completely wrong on that one. I would hope that the decision to charge VAdm Norman was made and discussed only at the level of the independent crown attorneys and within the "professionals" of the offices of Federal prosecutors. Anything else, any decision making at the political or even higher civil service level (PCO) would be entirely inappropriate and actually make the decision political. That would in itself justify a judge to declare mistrial.

So.... straight up questions:

What happens in October if the Liberals are replaced by the Conservatives?

If the prosecution is independent, does the trial continue?  Can the new government take action to stop the trial, reinstate the admiral and reimburse him? Or is that political interference?

Does the Director of Prosecution Services continue the prosecution because to do otherwise would suggest she was not acting independently in the first place?  Or does the Attorney-General, acting independently and in a non-partisan fashion, despite being a Conservative and a member of Cabinet, quash the prosecution (as would be their right AFAIK) on the grounds of the case having been irredeemably political from the first?  If the latter then wouldn't the result be the tarnishing of the DPS and the Service while at the same time the remedy would be perceived as political?

As much as I believe the Admiral has been screwed-over on this one, I am not seeing an easy road out.  But that is probably why he hired Henein and not me. 

 

[SeaKingTacco]

If the Conservatives win in October, the easy way out for them would be to allow the court proceedings to continue (ie- not interfere with the DPS) and simply approve his long standing request to pay his legal bills. If a judge finds him not guilty, the Government could then apologize and offer him a jammy diplomatic post (he is not without talent, after all, but he is probably too damaged in DND to offer him CDS after JV). If he is found guilty- then nothing.

The only grounds that I can see for a new Attorney General to get involved in this case and dismiss it is if it gets clearly demonstrated that the whole thing was politically motivated from the get go that the PMO/PCO had their fingers on the scale of justice.

One cannot go around accusing this government of interfering with the DPS for political reason and then go do it as soon as you are elected. Even if, especially if, you have public opinion on your side. Mob rule lies in thst direction.