VAdm Norman - Supply Ship contract: Legal fight

[brihard]

I'm betting crown pushes for a publication ban.

 

[sidemount]

I think there is also the possibility of the charges being dropped so that the liberals dont have to disclose their dirty secrets.

One can hope anyway.

Sent from my SM-G950W using Tapatalk

 

[Colin Parkinson]

That would suck, dropping charges leaves a taint, whereas being exonerated in the court room means he can don his uniform and go back to work. If they drop charges, I hope he can find reasons to sue for defamation of character .

 

[brihard]

That would suck, dropping charges leaves a taint, whereas being exonerated in the court room means he can don his uniform and go back to work. If they drop charges, I hope he can find reasons to sue for defamation of character .

Either way his security clearance is probably toast. The threshold for revoking clearance for leaking information is considerably lower than the threshold for criminal conviction. I guess it will hinge on whether the trial focuses on 'did he leak the documents?' or 'did him leaking these documents constitute a criminal offense of breach of trust?'.

I could be wrong of course, but from the outside looking in that seems like a significant factor.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Based on an August 19th trial start, with seven weeks scheduled for trial, it's very possible that there will not yet be a verdict by the election. It doesn't specify if this will be a jury or a judge only trial, though I wouldn't be surprised to see this go jury for strategic reasons.

I could be wrong as I have not looked at these type of things for a while, but the news state that the trial is scheduled in the Provincial court of Ontario, not the Ontario Supreme court. Jury trials are held in the Supreme court, normally - not in the Provincial one - where trials before a judge alone are usually held. So this would be a trial before a judge only ... but also a trial before judge appointed to the bench by the Ontario provincial government instead of a judge holding appointment from the Federal government.

 

[brihard]

I could be wrong as I have not looked at these type of things for a while, but the news state that the trial is scheduled in the Provincial court of Ontario, not the Ontario Supreme court. Jury trials are held in the Supreme court, normally - not in the Provincial one - where trials before a judge alone are usually held. So this would be a trial before a judge only ... but also a trial before judge appointed to the bench by the Ontario provincial government instead of a judge holding appointment from the Federal government.

I believe you're right, I didn't think of it from that angle. That would seem to increase the likelihood that the judge will ponder for some time before delivering a verdict. This case will, after all, be precedent setting and would have a high likelihood of appeal one way or another.

 

[Blackadder1916]

. . . whereas being exonerated in the court room means he can don his uniform and go back to work. . . .

You may be overly optimistic.  While being found "not guilty" in a court will remove him from jeopardy, he will never be "exonerated" in the eyes of this current government and at his rank level any job that he could do in uniform will be solely at the pleasure of the political masters.  He may be more welcome if a different party came to power - in fact such an appointment would be a visible "feck you" but such is the pettiness of politicians of any stripe.  I suspect that his naval career is at an end; he may given some government service role in the future but, given his age, that may not be in uniform.  The many months since he was removed from duty and the next year until completion of the legal process will give him ample time to prepare for the next chapter of his life.  It would not surprise me to see a book by him on the shelves shortly after the end of his trial.  He has many worthwhile things to say publicly.  He may end up being the Landymore for his generation of sailors.

 

[Halifax Tar]

You may be overly optimistic.  While being found "not guilty" in a court will remove him from jeopardy, he will never be "exonerated" in the eyes of this current government and at his rank level any job that he could do in uniform will be solely at the pleasure of the political masters.  He may be more welcome if a different party came to power - in fact such an appointment would be a visible "feck you" but such is the pettiness of politicians of any stripe.  I suspect that his naval career is at an end; he may given some government service role in the future but, given his age, that may not be in uniform.  The many months since he was removed from duty and the next year until completion of the legal process will give him ample time to prepare for the next chapter of his life.  It would not surprise me to see a book by him on the shelves shortly after the end of his trial.  He has many worthwhile things to say publicly.  He may end up being the Landymore for his generation of sailors.

I like your reference.  And I think you may be on to something.

 

[Bzzliteyr]

You may be overly optimistic.  While being found "not guilty" in a court will remove him from jeopardy, he will never be "exonerated" in the eyes of this current government and at his rank level any job that he could do in uniform will be solely at the pleasure of the political masters.  He may be more welcome if a different party came to power - in fact such an appointment would be a visible "feck you" but such is the pettiness of politicians of any stripe.  I suspect that his naval career is at an end; he may given some government service role in the future but, given his age, that may not be in uniform.  The many months since he was removed from duty and the next year until completion of the legal process will give him ample time to prepare for the next chapter of his life.  It would not surprise me to see a book by him on the shelves shortly after the end of his trial.  He has many worthwhile things to say publicly.  He may end up being the Landymore for his generation of sailors.

I wonder, does he have to remain FORCE test current?

 

[Ostrozac]

I wonder, does he have to remain FORCE test current?

In Ottawa, you usually book a FORCE test by DWAN; the member in question no longer has DWAN access (his blackberry is currently in an evidence locker and he has been 'invited' not to physically come to work), besides, his old office is in use by the current VCDS.

I do suspect that he is still a member of the Navy Officer's Mess, as NPF will still want their pound of flesh. It might be the only CF/DND-associated building that he can't be ordered away from, because ordering someone away to stay away from their mess simply isn't done.

 

[Pelorus]

I wonder, does he have to remain FORCE test current?

Given that he's essentially removed from all of the day-to-day aspects of his military career, I have to assume that he's expired.  That being said, who's going to put him on remedial measures for it?  Anyone with the power to do so is surely clever enough to see how that would play out once it inevitably made it to the press.

 

[OldSolduer]

This should be interesting. Methinks the PM et al may be guilty of trying to rig the process.

 

[Remius]

This should be interesting. Methinks the PM et al may be guilty of trying to rig the process.

As we've seen with things like sexual harassment, the rules don't apply to Justin trudeau.

 

[sidemount]

The rules never seem to apply to those making them

Sent from my SM-G950W using Tapatalk

 

[Retired AF Guy]

The rules never seem to apply to those making them

Sent from my SM-G950W using Tapatalk

Its being like that for millennium.

 

[sidemount]

And will never change

Sent from my SM-G950W using Tapatalk

 

[X Royal]

I could be wrong as I have not looked at these type of things for a while, but the news state that the trial is scheduled in the Provincial court of Ontario, not the Ontario Supreme court. Jury trials are held in the Supreme court, normally - not in the Provincial one - where trials before a judge alone are usually held. So this would be a trial before a judge only ... but also a trial before judge appointed to the bench by the Ontario provincial government instead of a judge holding appointment from the Federal government.

Sure you don't mean the Ontario Superior Court of Justice instead of the Ontario Supreme Court.
Two completely different courts.
I'm soon to report for jury duty and it's not for the Supreme Court but for the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.

 

[Privateer]

Ontario has two provincial trial courts.  The "lower" level trial court is the Ontario Court of Justice. There are no jury trials in that court.  The "superior" level trial court is the Superior Court of Justice, which can have trials with or without juries.

The Ontario Court of Justice is sometimes referred to as "provincial court". The judges are appointed by the provincial government.  The equivalent court in BC is the Provincial Court of British Columbia.

The judges of the Superior Court of Justice are appointed by the federal government.  The equivalent courts in other provinces include the Supreme Court of British Columbia and the Court of Queen's Bench in Alberta.

 

[FJAG]

Sure you don't mean the Ontario Superior Court of Justice instead of the Ontario Supreme Court.
Two completely different courts.
I'm soon to report for jury duty and it's not for the Supreme Court but for the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.

There are basically three courts in Ontario: The Ontario Court of Justice (which is the lowest trial level court and  equivalent to the "Provincial Court" in the CCC and many provinces and whose judges are appointed by the provinces and where all trials are by judge alone); the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (which is the superior trial court [aka Queen's Bench in some provinces] whose judges are appointed by the Feds and where trials can be by judge alone or with a jury; and the Court of Appeal.

There are three types of offences: summary conviction offences (which are tried in the Ontario Court of Justice); indictable offences (where the accused may have an election how he is tried); and hybrid offences (where the crown may first elect as to whether to proceed by summary conviction or indictment and, if the crown elects indictment, the accused may again have an election)

My knowledge of what is happening in the Norman case is sketchy and based on filing in the blanks from newspaper reports but I understand that he's been charged with "breach of trust" which I take it is probably s122 of the CCC:

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 a straight indictable offence and (because the term of sentence is limited to five years) is probably one where Norman was able to elect his method of trial. The options under s 536(2) of the CCC are: trial by judge alone before a judge of the Ontario Court of Justice; trial by judge alone of the Superior Court of Justice with or without a preliminary inquiry; and trial by judge and jury in the Superior Court of Justice with or without a preliminary inquiry. Note that if a preliminary inquiry is held it would be done before a judge alone of the Ontario Court of Justice to determine if there is sufficient evidence for the full trial to be heard. (Note also that the crown might still elect to have a preliminary inquiry where the accused elects not to.)

From what I can glean, Norman has elected to be tried by a judge alone in the Ontario Court of Justice which means that there will be no preliminary inquiry but it appears several pre-trial hearings have been set to deal with evidentiary matters. The start of the trial itself is set for Aug 19, 2019.

:cheers:

 

[Rifleman62]

Post removed IAW site policy.

**Staff**