Soon we'll be away from here
Step on the gas and wipe that tear away

Sssssslllllloooooowwwww Justice

It took 10-years to dismiss this guy? What's wrong with this picture?

Court upholds firing of SQ officer
Police ethics commission ruling stands. SWAT-team member used excessive force, including putting gun in suspect's mouth
 
ALLISON HANES
The Gazette

Wednesday, August 25, 2004

A Quebec Court judge upheld last month the firing of a Surete du Quebec SWAT-team member for striking a handcuffed suspect in the face and placing a loaded service revolver in his mouth while making an arrest in 1994.

After a lengthy disciplinary hearing, the police ethics commission found Cpl. Bernard Bourgouin guilty of using disproportionate force in 2002 and stripped him of his badge in 2003.

Bourgouin appealed the conviction and the sanction, but last month a court judge ruled that the ethics commission's ruling was supported by the evidence and that the punishment meted out was reasonable.

"Dismissal is the most severe sanction set out in the law governing police," Quebec Court Judge Armando Aznar wrote. "At the same time, the ethical violation the appellant was found guilty of is extremely serious."

During the course of a police raid in St. Etienne de Bolton on June 2, 1994, Normand Beaulieu was apprehended by an officer he later identified as Bourgouin.

After being handcuffed, Beaulieu said he was told to "shut his mouth." He said he was dealt a blow to the face, with a closed fist or a pistol, that fractured his cheekbone.

The arresting officer then took out his gun and placed its barrel in Beaulieu's mouth - supposedly in the name of extracting information on where other suspects were hiding.

The ethics commission ruled nothing justified this extreme use of force against Beaulieu, who was slightly built, handcuffed at the time, and not posing a threat to the arresting officer.

But Bourgouin appealed on grounds that it took the better part of a decade for the wheels of justice to churn out a decision, including nearly two years from the date of the incident for Beaulieu and the lawyer he hired to finger him and lodge a formal complaint.

Bourgouin contested Beaulieu's ability to identify him as the assailant. He also questioned why the ethics panel believed the complainant's word over that of several SQ officers who offered testimony that exonerated him.

But Aznar pointed out that the arbiters based their ruling on the fact that Beaulieu told a fairly consistent story, while the officers who testified drew memory blanks, claimed not to have seen anything and were only co-

operative with their accused colleague's lawyer.

Bourgouin could still appeal the latest decision to a higher court.

Horrified onlookers watch police shoot hostage-taker in downtown Toronto

No, I'm not going to touch this one... it's too easy.

I'm a steamroller baby...

So, what exactly is Irwin Cotler doing with the placement of two supreme court justices? Would a little debate on their appointment be oh so bad? This is Canada, right? The land of fairness? Not the land of totalitarianism?

(no wonder I left this place.)

p.s. thank you, Jacques Dupuis for attempting to insert yourself in the process, as you should.

Tories blast 'sham' review of judges
Nominees should appear in person, Tory justice critic argues

CANADIAN PRESS
OTTAWA - To hear Justice Minister Irwin Cotler tell it, his two choices to sit on Canada's top court can pretty much walk on water. And no one disagreed with him.

The first-ever committee to review Supreme Court candidates aired no qualms today about Ontario Court of Appeal Justices Rosalie Abella and Louise Charron.

In fact, the all-party advisory panel of seven MPs and two legal experts asked few questions about the judges themselves.

Instead, opposition members on the interim panel spent much of a three-hour session venting frustration about the process.

The interim committee has no veto power, did not see a short list of candidates before selections were made, and will issue a non-binding report on Friday. The appointments must then be made official by the prime minister any time after that.

Conservative members had to settle for grilling Cotler after the Liberals nixed their request to quiz candidates in person.

Conservative deputy leader Peter MacKay called the process "a sham" that breaks Prime Minister Paul Martin's promise to open the high-court selection system.

`It's a joke," MacKay said after the hearing. "It's window dressing. It's lip service. It's just running it by us for some form of credibility that doesn't exist."

Cotler said he wasn't about to risk judicial integrity by exposing high-court candidates to such queries as "When did you stop beating your wife?"

MacKay called the comment "insulting" and said MPs never intended to turn the screenings into a political free-for-all.

Still, much of Wednesday's hearing was a mix of grandstanding and partisan clashes.

MacKay and Conservative justice critic Vic Toews lambasted Cotler for giving the panel 24 hours' notice, a three-hour televised hearing and just two days to report on the candidates. Abella and Charron weren't announced as nominees until Tuesday.

Cotler, on the other hand, spent eight months researching potential nominees, consulting with judges and lawyers, and reviewing rulings.

Toews called it a "rubber stamp" process that strips Canadians of their right to know their most powerful jurists.

He called it "astounding" that the candidates were not even asked if they would appear before the committee.

Cotler fired back that all parties agreed that only the justice minister would take questions on a contender's intellect, demeanour, racial awareness and other attributes.

New Democrat MP Joe Comartin reminded Cotler that the Liberals weren't willing to negotiate on that point.

MacKay called the hearing a pointless review of a done deal. Conservatives had little choice but to accept a lousy process and fight for future changes, he said.

Cotler himself all but confirmed its irrelevance.

It would take a lot to change his mind about Abella and Charron, he told the panel.

"Only if you can provide any clear, authoritative evidence that would disqualify a person from serving."

Both nominees are "outstanding," Cotler repeatedly said.

The government tried to broaden public scrutiny of top-court appointments while protecting judicial independence, he said.

Even before the hearing began, Toews noted that Abella and Charron are both known for judgments supporting same-sex rights.

The nine-member Supreme Court will hold a milestone hearing in October on Liberal efforts to legalize same-sex marriage. Toews suggested a political connection.

"It is clear for everyone to see that this is part of the prime minister's agenda" to allow gay weddings, he said.

Cotler insisted that merit was his prime consideration when whittling down top candidates.

He also dismissed suggestions from some quarters that Abella, a renowned defender of human rights, is soft on crime.

"This has no basis in fact," Cotler said, citing a review of her judgments.

He also torpedoed the idea that Abella may be the court's next great dissenter. Of 313 judgments since 1994, Abella dissented in 31 - or 10 per cent of cases, he said.

Cotler also rejected a Quebec request for the federal government to choose from a list provided by the province to fill future vacancies from Quebec.

In a letter sent Aug. 6 to Cotler, Quebec Justice Minister Jacques Dupuis and Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Benoit Pelletier asked for "formal participation" by Quebec in the process.

"We insist that we are part of the decisions," they wrote.

But Cotler said selecting from a list provided by the province would infringe on the federal government's constitutional right to name justices.

Bravo Cyberpresse, vous etes le meilleur cyber-journal en Canada

Week after week Quebec's Cyberpresse - which publishes Montreal's La Presse and Sherbrooke's La Tribune, among others - scoops every other newspaper in Canada. Looking for breaking news in Canada? Go to www.cyberpresse.ca. There you will find current news long before it breaks in the other English Canadian newspaper publications. Go there now and you will find a report from today's events at the Canadian Police Chief's conference being held in Vancouver in which the RCMP warns Canadians that the world has become sufficiently dangerous and complex to the point where the police cannot assure the safety of its citizens.

For the rest of you Canadians that never bother to learn French (your loss), guess you'll have to wait for the morning papers...

Selon les chefs de police du Canada

Le monde devenu un endroit dangereux
Presse Canadienne
Vancouver

Le terrorisme et la menace croissante représentée par le crime organisé ont fait du Canada et du monde un endroit où il est devenu plus dangereux de vivre, a déclaré mercredi le dirigeant de la Gendarmerie royale du Canada (GRC).

«À mon avis, le monde est aujourd'hui un endroit beaucoup plus dangereux et ce pour plusieurs raisons, a dit le commissaire de la GRC Guiliano Zaccardelli lors d'une conférence de presse qui s'est déroulée au terme du congrès annuel de l'Association canadienne des chefs de police.

Le crime organisé dispose maintenant de moyens beaucoup plus raffinés qu'il y a une génération, et cela doit être ajouté à la menace d'attentats terroristes et aux événements du 11 septembre 2001.

«Je crois que le monde n'est plus aussi sûr que lorsque nous étions de jeunes policiers», a-t-il affirmé.

M. Zaccardelli et d'autres dirigeants de services de police ont participé à cette conférence de presse pour souligner certaines des discussions qui se sont déroulées durant ce 99e congrès annuel des chefs de police.

Même s'il croit que le Canada continue d'être un des endroits «relativement» sécuritaires dans le monde, il ne s'est pas dit rassuré pour autant, soutenant que «les menaces potentielles ont augmenté considérablement».

Edgar McLeod, président de l'association et chef du service régional de police de Cap Breton, en Nouvelle-Écosse, a posé la question et donné la réponse.

«Est-ce que les Canadiens sont plus en sécurité que lorsque j'ai commencé ma carrière?, a-t-il demandé. La réponse est non.»

Mais selon lui, ce n'est pas seulement un problème pour les policiers.

«Nous avons tous une responsabilité ici, a-t-il dit. Les citoyens doivent s'engager dans leurs quartiers et leurs communautés.»

I CAN'T SLEEP!

Why - WHY? - am I up at four-in-the-freakin'-morning? I can't sleep. I was fine until my cell phone rang THREE TIMES! last night around midnight. Then someone left a message that contained nothing but static I know one asshole who's gonna get a call back this morning at six.

And I'm sorry for the crack yesterday about cops and donuts... it was too easy, I shouldn't have went for it. Mostly, because my good friend and fellow advocate, Dawn Kelly is actually at the police chiefs conference trying to drum-up sponsorships for our new victims group - way to bite the hand that feeds. John.

Now my good friend, Eric Muller over at Is That Legal? is debating a right wing journalist, Michelle Malkin on the radio today. Malkin has written a book that claims the WWII American internment of the Japanese wasn't all that bad after all.

Wrong answer, baby. Eric has a stick up his ass about the Japanese internment - he's even written a book on the subject", you don't want to cross him on this issue.

We wish you luck, Eric.

Actually I saw Eric on Sunday at a brunch (that's right, I'm old enough that I now attend brunches, sickening isn't it?) Eric and I live in virtual reality. We TALK ENDLESSLY about getting together and jamming (he plays guitar, I play drums. Influences? When I'm around Eric - Fountains of Wayne, Squeeze, and The Little Hands of Concrete). We also TALK about how we're going to mountain bike together.

so far, none of this has happened.

And it most likely never will happen. Why? 'Cause I'm up at four-in-the-morning blogging.

The Olympics - not to rub rock-salt in a wound, but has Canada won anything? You know, in my day Canada was always the joke nation, we'd show up at these things, never win anything, but people like us, we were fun to party with. Now Australia has long surpassed us as the fun-lovin' nation AND they have respect. Thirty-seven medals, folks. Fourth overall. Remember when Ben Johnson was going to redeem us? Then he fell from grace (boy, by today's scandals Ben's controversy looks mild, what-he-do? Take a few Tylanol?). Oh well, it's never been the same since (ya, don't give me that Donavan Bailey crap, no one ever liked him anyway).

You know, I once met this Canadian literary agent and I asked him what his biggest failure was. He said on the eve he was to publish what would have been the book to make his career - the Ben Johnson story (common, this is Canada, folks, 100 units and a feature in Toronto Life is considered a success), the doping scandal broke. He hasn't been the same since.

Anyway look for heads to roll in the Canadian Olympic program. Vancouver is only six years away, but those are the Winter games... we should do okay there, right?

Now this is a quality in me that my wife loathes. Officially, I am an American citizen, but roll out the Olympic games and I become intensely patriotic to my former country. I'm like a reed in the wind... any port in a storm, I'll come home.

I wish James Ellroy would release the final chapter after Cold Six Thousand. American Tabloid was great (could 6000 have been any terser? For 600 pages I felt completely constipated.)

More coffee? Probably not... I should wait a few hours. Uh-oh, the baby's awake - hope I'm not asked to lend a hand. Maybe she'll eat and go back to sleep. Shit, it's almost six o'clock... Amelia will be up soon (early riser). Should I take her to The Misanthrope" this weekend? Probably not. She's going to bug me about seeing the Bulls" - last fireworks of the Summer. Some fun, huh Bambie?.

You know, I think I AM going to have more coffee...

All those chiefs, All those donuts..

Ask an American what they find most impressive about Canada, and they are astounded - ASTOUNDED - by the number of donut shops per capita north of the 49th...

Now, in case you weren't aware of it, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police is holding their annual conference all this week in Vancouver. What do police chiefs talk about when they convene? What are the issues that get their dander-up?

According to the Toronto Star, Canadian chiefs want revisions to the criminal code so that they can have broader access to emails to fight "hi-tech crime"

You know if this is the Chiefs' major beef we're in trouble.

I can think of about a half-dozen other concerns (oh say, better communication between police jurisdictions OR towards a seamless integration of police, justice, and social services), but cyber-crime?

The Conservatives tried to make this a big campaign issue back in June. The argument went something like this; if Michael Briere never had access to child pornography, then he never would have murdered Holly Jones. Child porn is to blame, so let's propose banning its access on the internet (without providing a logical method for how this would be carried out that wouldn't somehow inhibit the tranference of all kinds of other useful information).

Now it seems like the Police chiefs are taking up the rallying cry, which is understandable - this sort of issue plays well in the homes of god-fearing Canadians (who wouldn't want to see and end to child porn?). Even Michael Briere admitted that child porn was what motivated him to kill Holly. It seems like a no-brainer, right? Give the police more authority and let's ban this porn.

But should we really trust anything Michael Briere says? I'm sure he believes pornography is the answer to all his troubles, but somehow I think its a little more complicated than that. And you know what? So do the chiefs of police.

Canadian chiefs should stop grandstanding on this issue, it only makes them look desparate and ineffectual - just what we don't want to see in our civil authority.

BOOZE SCANDAL ROCKS QUEBEC JUDICIAL SYSTEM!

(forgive my hyperbole)

Quebec Chief justice quits after impaired charge

CANADIAN PRESS

MONTREAL — Lyse Lemieux, the first woman to be named chief justice of the Quebec Superior Court, announced today that she is retiring after being cited for impaired driving.

Blood-alcohol tests allege Lemieux was driving with a level of twice the legal limit of 0.08 when she was ticketed by Quebec provincial police earlier this month, said Alanna Woods, a Superior Court spokeswoman.

Lemieux, 68, is to appear in court on Nov. 10 to face charges of driving while impaired and having a blood-alcohol level above the legal limit.

She was cited after she allegedly hit an unoccupied piece of road equipment parked on the side of a major highway on Aug. 5.

No one was injured in the incident, which happened around 10 p.m.

"All citizens are equal before the law and I am taking my responsibilities," Lemieux, who has sat as a judge for more than 20 years, said in a statement.

Lemieux will leave her job on Sept. 30 and will perform only administrative duties until then.

"I will refrain from participating in any public event," said Lemieux, who was appointed in August 1996.

"As well, I will not participate in discussions involving the orientation of the institution, whose integrity I so vividly wish to preserve in taking this decision."

It will now be up to the federal cabinet to name a new chief justice.

Lemieux noted in her statement she had her driver's licence suspended for three months in 2001 when she overtook a school bus on her way to work in the morning.

Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin of the Supreme Court of Canada said in a statement that she was "very sad to hear of the unfortunate circumstances that led . . . (Lemieux) to abandon her functions and retire from the bench."

"This must have been a very difficult decision for Chief Justice Lemieux and I understand and respect the choice that she has made to leave at this juncture.

"Lyse Lemieux has served the administration of justice with skill and dignity for over two decades. Serious as it is, the incident that brings her to leave the judiciary must not overshadow her important and lengthy contribution to public life in Canada."

Lemieux has worked in all areas of law except criminal and has presided over civil and administrative cases in Superior Court. She is also credited for her work with her predecessor Lawrence Poitras in helping to reduce delays for court hearings.

Lemieux's colleagues were saddened by her departure but not surprised by her decision.

"She wants to preserve the integrity of the court and when she faced all this, she decided to quit her function," said Justice Robert Pidgeon, associate chief justice of Quebec Superior Court.

Pidgeon noted that Lemieux was doing a good job building a team to preside over implementing reforms to the Quebec Civil Code and was extremely concerned with the efficiency of the courts and judges.

Justice Andre Deslongchamps, assistant chief justice of the Superior Court, described Lemieux as a dedicated and well-liked jurist.

"She was a very responsible person," Deslongchamps said, calling her a person of vision.

"You can imagine that we have been consulted and we discussed the matter, myself, Justice Pidgeon and her, and she came to that conclusion that she has to quit."

Noted Montreal criminal lawyer Robert La Haye said Lemieux made the best possible decision.

La Haye said Lemieux not only preserved the integrity of the judicial system but also avoided putting herself in a conflict of interest if, for example, she ever had to judge an appeal in a drunk driving case.

Let's go, rummy, walk the line...

Gone Fishing

There is an interesting story in La Tribune this morning about the father of Julie Boisvenu, Pierre Boisvenu's plans not to attend the trial of Hugo Bernier, which begins in Montreal next month. Instead, M. Boisvenu intends to leave the Province on a fishing trip.

Now I've been talking to Pierre and don't for a minute think he's decided to relax and get complacent. He had a meeting with the Quebec Minister of Justice this week, Jacques Dupuis, and I can tell you that Pierre's plans for the reform of victims services in Quebec are ambitious and just what the Province needs to knock it out of its slumber.

Here is the Tribune story:

Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu n'assistera pas au procès

Isabelle Pion
La Tribune
Sherbrooke

À un peu plus de deux semaines du procès du présumé meurtrier de sa fille Julie, Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu n'entend pas y assister. Deux amis travaillant pour deux firmes d'avocats à Montréal ont plutôt offert leur soutien à la famille.

Rappelons que le procès d'Hugo Bernier, accusé du meurtre de Julie Boisvenu en juin 2002, débutera le 8 septembre prochain. À la suite d'un jugement rendu par le juge Paul-Marcel Bellavance, le procès a été déplacé à Montréal. La nouvelle avait semé la consternation chez la famille Boisvenu. Avec ce changement de venue, l'avocat Marc Vaillancourt, qui devait représenter la famille pour la tenir au courant du processus, ne pouvait plus être présent.

"On a des offres d'amis criminalistes dans deux firmes d'avocats différentes. Ils nous ont offert de supporter la famille durant le procès et ils vont nous conseiller sur les suites à prendre", explique M. Boisvenu en soulignant qu'il a bien l'intention de partir à la pêche quelque temps, question de décompresser.

Leurs amis s'attarderont notamment au travail qui a été fait en matière de libérations conditionnelles. Dans le passé, celui-ci n'avait pas exclu d'intenter des poursuites civiles contre le ministère de la Justice. Interrogé sur cette question, il répond: "La question que l'on se pose, c'est est-ce que Julie serait vivante si des personnes avaient fait une meilleure job? Est-ce qu'il y a des gens qui ont une responsabilité en plus du meurtrier?"

Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu et sa conjointe veulent "limiter au maximum" leur présence en cour. Il croit qu'ils devront possiblement s'y rendre pour le prononcé de la sentence. De plus, comme le permet le code criminel aux proches de victime, ils pourraient faire un témoignage avant que le jury délibère. M. Boisvenu précise qu'il étudie encore cette possibilité.

"Get me a victim, or you'll be the victim"

Hey can anyone put me in touch with a co-victim of homicide from the Atlantic provinces?

Lonely-for-my-down-east-stompin'-grounds,

Johnny A

No Comment here on the death of Frank Cotroni...

I don't do mob bosses.

Frank Cotroni meurt à 72 ans

Rollande Parent
Presse Canadienne
Montréal

L'un des mafiosi montréalais le plus légendaire, Frank Santo Cotroni, est
décédé mardi en matinée, emporté par un cancer du cerveau. Agé de 72 ans, il
était en libération conditionnelle et avait passé presque la moitié de sa vie en
prison.

Cotroni était né dans l'est de Montréal et avait commencé à sévir au
début des années 1940. Ses parents et certains de ses frères et soeurs étaient
originaires de Calabre, dans le sud de l'Italie. Le grand public avait eu
l'occasion d'entendre parler de Frank Cotroni pour une dernière fois, en
septembre 2003, lors de la parution d'un livre de recettes italiennes de son
cru. Dans la préface, il écrivait aimer concocter des petits plats pour ses
proches. Cette initiative avait semblé saugrenue à certains observateurs surtout
que Frank Cotroni était connu pour ses crimes, ses nombreux bris de conditions
et ses multiples séjours en prison. Un endroit qui est loin d'être idéal pour
développer des qualités de gastronome et de chef cuisinier. En fait, Frank
Cotroni a été privé de liberté pendant une bonne trentaine d'années. Il a connu
les prisons canadiennes et américaines.