The Perjure at trial were : Heather lee Pugh,
John,S.Raymond, and one of my owned Expert
Qualifications of my accounted Mr. Gerald Withers. = Trial Division Exhibit List. A-6 the point here is must be Qualified to lie, and miss lead the Judge at Trial:
Richard Harris must start a Guide to Personal Injury Litigation" Because there will be no relief at the Appeal court on February 13,2008, at 10.am for Richard Harris Life work up to February 12/1997, the first time that i would have any ID of the Property requirement of what they D.O.T. would need from me.???
will the police Investigations in to this Matter of PERJURY.???
The Law Society did not do a thing about the Conflict of interest of MRDC law firm,
going to the Ombudsman was a wast of time and Money.
Going to the The New Brunswick Association of Real Estate Appraisers was a wast of time and money, fighting for my life from February 12/1997 up to this day January 11/2008 was a com pleat wast of a life.?
If i could do life over and know what i know now ! i would of just gave the property away.
| Posted: Wednesday, December 17, 2003
The Supreme Court of Canada in Odhavji Estate v. Woodhouse, 2003 SCC 69, has detailed the requirements for the tort of "misfeasance in a public office", an intentional tort in which a public officer deliberately fails to exercise a public function, knowing that his or her conduct is unlawful and likely to injure the plaintiff. An Ontario resident was fatally shot by police. The police officers involved did not comply with the investigator's instructions to stay segregated, attend interviews the same day as the shooting, and provide their notes, clothing and blood samples quickly. An Ontario statute puts police officers under a statutory duty to comply with such investigations, and the chief of police under a duty to ensure officers carry out their duties in accordance with the Act (Police Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 15). The investigation cleared the officers of wrongdoing. The estate and family of the deceased brought actions against the officers and the police chief for misfeasance in a public office, and actions for negligence against the chief, the police board, and the province. The motions judge and the Court of appeal struck out portions of the claims. The palintiffs appealed the Court of Appeals decision to strike the claims for misfeasance in a public office against the officers and the chief, and the claims for negligence against the board and the province. The chief cross-appealed the Court of Appeal's decision to let the action against him for negligence to go forward. The Supreme Court of Canada held that the actions in misfeasance against the officers and the chief, as well as the action in negligence against the chief could proceed. The Court struck the actions in negligence against the board and the province. The Court ruled that misfeasance in a public office:
The statement of claim in this case pled all the required elements of the tort. With respect to the actions in negligence, the Court held that the plaintiffs must establish:
The Court held that the chief owed a prima facie duty of care to the plaintiffs, but there was no sufficient nexus between the plaintiffs and the board or between the plaintiffs and the province. |
|
| |
|
| Stay Current > Personal Injury > Collection |
SCC rules on tort of misfeasance in public office
CLE staff
Posted: Wednesday, December 17, 2003
|
The Supreme Court of Canada in Odhavji Estate v. Woodhouse, 2003 SCC 69, has detailed the requirements for the tort of "misfeasance in a public office", an intentional tort in which a public officer deliberately fails to exercise a public function, knowing that his or her conduct is unlawful and likely to injure the plaintiff.
An Ontario resident was fatally shot by police. The police officers involved did not comply with the investigator's instructions to stay segregated, attend interviews the same day as the shooting, and provide their notes, clothing and blood samples quickly.
An Ontario statute puts police officers under a statutory duty to comply with such investigations, and the chief of police under a duty to ensure officers carry out their duties in accordance with the Act (Police Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 15). The investigation cleared the officers of wrongdoing.
The estate and family of the deceased brought actions against the officers and the police chief for misfeasance in a public office, and actions for negligence against the chief, the police board, and the province.
The motions judge and the Court of appeal struck out portions of the claims.
The palintiffs appealed the Court of Appeals decision to strike the claims for misfeasance in a public office against the officers and the chief, and the claims for negligence against the board and the province.
The chief cross-appealed the Court of Appeal's decision to let the action against him for negligence to go forward.
The Supreme Court of Canada held that the actions in misfeasance against the officers and the chief, as well as the action in negligence against the chief could proceed.
The Court struck the actions in negligence against the board and the province.
The Court ruled that misfeasance in a public office:
can include a public officer's failure to perform a statutory duty, but is not limited to unlawful exercises of statutory powers;
is an intentional tort that includes
deliberate, unlawful conduct in exercising public functions; and
awareness that the conduct is unlawful and likely to injury the plaintiff;
must include the requirements common to all torts—that the tortious conduct was the legal cause of the plaintiff's injuries, and the injuries are compensable in tort law.
The statement of claim in this case pled all the required elements of the tort.
With respect to the actions in negligence, the Court held that the plaintiffs must establish:
a duty of care, which includes
foreseeable harm as a consequence of the alleged breach; and
sufficient proximity between the parties; and
no policy reasons to restrict the duty.
The Court held that the chief owed a prima facie duty of care to the plaintiffs, but there was no sufficient nexus between the plaintiffs and the board or between the plaintiffs and the province.
WOW!!!!! IN CANADA??????
Police officers across Canada face once-rare perjury charges
Published: Sunday, January 20, 2008 | 1:45 PM ET
Canadian Press: Tamara King, THE CANADIAN PRESS
WINNIPEG - A growing number of Canadian police officers are facing charges of perjury - the serious and usually rare crime of giving false testimony.
At least eight officers, either active or recently retired, will heading be to courts in Toronto, Winnipeg and Regina over the next two months accused of an offence that carries a maximum penalty of 14 years in prison.
"I have not seen this many examples of perjury charges brought against police officers," says James Morton, a Toronto lawyer and adjunct professor at York University's Osgoode Hall Law School.
"I don't think this means that police are lying more than they used to," Morton said in a telephone interview.
"It used to be that people just didn't believe policemen would lie. That sort of restriction has disappeared now."
Perjury is viewed as dangerous enough to the justice system that it's actually enshrined in Canada's Constitution, Morton notes.
Continue Article
"It is the only crime that is expressly referred to in the Charter of Rights (and Freedoms)," he says.
Most serious when the accusation is levelled against a member of the justice system, perjury is extremely difficult to prove. Prosecutors have to show not only that the evidence was false, but that it was intentionally false.
"It's really something that's only prosecuted when it becomes clear that someone wilfully, intentionally and effectively misled the court - lied to the court," Morton says.
"When a police officer actually does intentionally mislead the court, that's a tremendously dangerous thing. It has the effect of leading to wrongful convictions and poisoning the whole system."
In the most recent case, two Winnipeg police officers were accused last week of lying under oath about how they obtained a search warrant in a drug investigation.
Hymie Weinstein, a defence lawyer with more than 40 years experience, says he can't recall perjury charges ever being laid against police officers in Manitoba.
"Be it city police, be it RCMP or any other police officer," said Weinstein, who will be defending one of the Winnipeg officers recently charged.
Also last week, a British Columbia RCMP officer was temporarily taken off the job because of allegations he gave misleading testimony at an inquest into the 2004 death of Kevin St. Arnaud, who was shot after a drugstore burglary.
Although the force did not use the term perjury, Const. Ryan Sheremetta was suspended under the RCMP Act over allegations that he conducted himself "in a disgraceful manner that could bring discredit on the force by knowingly making false, misleading or inaccurate statement(s) while testifying ..." Assistant Commissioner Al Macintyre said at a news conference.
In Saskatchewan, a Regina police officer is going to trial, likely in the fall, on a perjury charge that stems from testimony given at a January 2006 traffic-court case involving a seatbelt violation.
Five members of an elite Toronto Police Service drug squad that is facing allegations of extortion and assault are also charged with perjury. Jury selection is scheduled to start in February.
Also in Toronto, a police officer was acquitted last November of assault, perjury and attempting to obstruct justice. The 17-year veteran of the Toronto Police Service had been accused assaulting an activist at a violent anti-poverty demonstration in 2003 and then attempting to fabricate evidence.
Though it's historically rare to see perjury charges against police, it has long been a cultural problem, says Frank Addario, president of the Ontario Criminal Lawyers' Association.
"I think it's a constant problem. The police get corrupted because they think the cause they're working for is noble and righteous, and therefore it's OK to shade the truth because the defendant is a slime bucket."
Police agencies appear hesitant to address the topic publicly. A spokesman for the Canadian Police Association, which represents frontline officers, said no one was available to comment. The agency for police brass, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, did not respond to an interview request.
Addario said he's concerned that until recently, perjury charges were relatively rare, since they could act as a deterrent.
"We know, historically, there have been wrongful convictions, and that they have been caused, in part, by police corruption in pursuit of what they thought was righteous and it hasn't led to charges," Addario said in a telephone interview from Toronto.
Part of the solution, he says, would be to improve disclosure mechanisms, which curb the capacity of a police witness to lie about circumstances. Another improvement would be to encourage Crown attorneys "to maintain a healthy, objective distance" from the police, Addario said.
"The problem is ongoing, and it's something I think the justice system has to continue to grapple with."
-
Some recent cases of Canadian police officers accused of giving false testimony:
-Two Winnipeg police officers, Constables Peter O'Kane and Jess Zebrun, were put on paid administrative leave last week after being charged with perjury. The allegations involve how the officers obtained a search warrant for a drug investigation.
-RCMP Const. Ryan Sheremetta was suspended with pay last week over allegations that he conducted himself "in a disgraceful manner that could bring discredit on the force by knowingly making false, misleading or inaccurate statement(s)" while testifying at an inquest into the death of Kevin St. Arnaud, a man shot by Sheremetta after a 2004 drugstore robbery in Vanderhoof, B.C.
- Const. William Schmidt, a Regina police officer, was charged with perjury last March and is expected to go to trial next fall. The allegation stems from testimony given at a January 2006 traffic-court case that involved a seatbelt violation.
-Five members of an elite Toronto Police Service drug squad that's facing allegations of extortion and assault are also charged with perjury: Staff Sgt. John Schertzer, Const. Steve Correia, Const. Joseph Miched, Const. Ray Pollard and Const. Ned Maodus. Jury selection is scheduled for February.
-Const. Amar Katoch, 48, of the Toronto Police Service was acquitted last November of allegations that he assaulted an activist at a violent anti-poverty demonstration in 2003 and then attempted to fabricate evidence.
TEXTAREA_ID
No comments:
Post a Comment