Fantino will have to resume testifying at OPP hearing
Ontario's Divisional Court has rejected a move by the head of the OPP to stop a disciplinary hearing involving two high-ranking officers.
OPP Commissioner Julian Fantino was halfway through a tough cross-examination last month, facing accusations of abuse of power, when he tried to shut down the hearing, accusing the adjudicator of bias.
The hearing in Orillia was investigating whether Supt. Ken MacDonald and Insp. Alison Jevons — who were charged with neglect of duty over their handling of an internal investigation in Eastern Ontario — are victims of a political witch hunt by Fantino and the OPP union.
On Thursday, Superior Court Judge Janet Wilson of Ontario's Divisional Court ruled against Fantino.
"Most importantly ... [the court] found that it was inappropriate to have stopped the proceedings midway into Commissioner Fantino's cross-examination for the purposes of going to the higher courts," said Julian Falconer, the lawyer for the two accused officers.
Falconer went on to say that he was relieved by the decision.
"I think these interruptions do nothing but create longer, larger proceedings and expenses that are simply crushing for these officers. They are anxious — from a reputation point of view and their ability to do their jobs as police officers — to bring this to an end," he said.
Fantino has said suggestions he is abusing his power are "hysterical nonsense."
MacDonald and Jevons were ordered to look into why OPP supervisors in Eastern Ontario looked the other way when a local officer allegedly took a baseball bat to his wife's car.
When MacDonald and Jevons concluded there was misconduct, the police union filed a complaint claiming major problems with the whole investigation. Fantino, then fresh to the commissioner's job, ordered a review of the findings. He later agreed with the union and charged the two senior officers with neglect of duty and deceit for their handling of the investigation.
In turn, the two officers have charged Fantino with abuse of power.
No date has been set for the resumption of the hearing. When it gets going again, Fantino is expected to return to the witness box to face more questions about his involvement in the case.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2008/11/28/opp-fantino.html
Friday, November 28, 2008
Thursday, November 27, 2008
McGuinty may be wearing out welcome as dad-in-chief
McGuinty may be wearing out welcome as dad-in-chief
November 26, 2008 Jim Coyle
David Ortiz might have to start sharing his nickname.
The Boston Red Sox slugger is known to fans as Big Papi -- the "big" self-evident, "papi" a term apparently used in his native Dominican Republic for "dude" or "buddy."
In Ontario, Premier Dalton McGuinty may soon come to be known as Big Pappy -- in this case owing to a rather large streak of "father-knows-best-ism" in his Liberal government.
If the premier has developed a signature image, it's as a ban-happy control freak. The list of things that have fallen under his censorious eye is long and growing. Pit-bulls. Trans-fats. Lawn pesticides. Cigarette displays in convenience stores. Smoking in cars carrying children. Cellphones in cars.
Individually, many of these were uncontroversial, some even popular. Taken together, they reveal a mindset likely to make the province chafe just a bit.
Last week, as his government introduced proposed new restrictions on young drivers, McGuinty made a comment that probably revealed more than he intended.
The legislation would ban G2 drivers from carrying more than one teenage passenger during the first year; allow zero blood-alcohol in drivers 21 and younger; and increase sanctions against young drivers for any infraction.
"If that means a modest restriction on their freedoms until the reach the age of 22, then, as a dad, I am more than prepared to do that."
The premier has apparently appointed himself Ontario's dad-in-chief.
But judging by the firestorm of opposition to his legislation, McGuinty might have worn out his welcome as the province's Ward Cleaver.
There comes a point, as New Democrat Gilles Bisson noted in reaction to the introduction of the young driver bill, when politicians have to admit "we can't legislate everything."
In the end, McGuinty may be done in more by his fetish for risk-management and tidy-up time -- the incessant super-Dad --than anything he does or doesn't do on large matters of the economy.
Yesterday, Premier Dad was at it again when he was asked to comment on the huge opposition to the bill that's grown up among young people on Facebook.
The first part of his answer was bizarre. He applauded the participation of young people in the discussion about road safety. But he wanted to know "what responsibilities are they prepared to undertake to provide us with some assurances that they will do what they need to do to keep our roads safe?"
Talk about reverse onus. What's next? Having LCBO clerks demand assurances before making a sale that purchasers will not get tipsy?
The second part of the premier's answer was even odder.
He said he wasn't sure that young people would come to committees to make presentations at public hearings on the bill.
"I think we need to find a way to get onto Facebook. . . . I talk to my kids about this, they say: 'You're not going to make me go to a committee hearing, are you? When did you invent those, in the 1700s?' "
Let's leave aside the fact the premier has already banned civil servants from using Facebook and seems to have had a conversion experience on the merits of social networking.
Since when were premiers in the business of dissing a form of government that is a model for the world? Or a century in which a lot of really cool stuff was invented?
What next? Will the premier be mocking Confederation as an outdated concept because it happened, like, back in 1867, or whatever?
Not only is McGuinty subject to recurring doubts of Dad-ism. He's becoming that worst kind of middle-aged Dad --the Dad trying to be hip.
Jim Coyle writes on provincial affairs for Mercury news services.
http://news.guelphmercury.com/Opinions/article/408843
November 26, 2008 Jim Coyle
David Ortiz might have to start sharing his nickname.
The Boston Red Sox slugger is known to fans as Big Papi -- the "big" self-evident, "papi" a term apparently used in his native Dominican Republic for "dude" or "buddy."
In Ontario, Premier Dalton McGuinty may soon come to be known as Big Pappy -- in this case owing to a rather large streak of "father-knows-best-ism" in his Liberal government.
If the premier has developed a signature image, it's as a ban-happy control freak. The list of things that have fallen under his censorious eye is long and growing. Pit-bulls. Trans-fats. Lawn pesticides. Cigarette displays in convenience stores. Smoking in cars carrying children. Cellphones in cars.
Individually, many of these were uncontroversial, some even popular. Taken together, they reveal a mindset likely to make the province chafe just a bit.
Last week, as his government introduced proposed new restrictions on young drivers, McGuinty made a comment that probably revealed more than he intended.
The legislation would ban G2 drivers from carrying more than one teenage passenger during the first year; allow zero blood-alcohol in drivers 21 and younger; and increase sanctions against young drivers for any infraction.
"If that means a modest restriction on their freedoms until the reach the age of 22, then, as a dad, I am more than prepared to do that."
The premier has apparently appointed himself Ontario's dad-in-chief.
But judging by the firestorm of opposition to his legislation, McGuinty might have worn out his welcome as the province's Ward Cleaver.
There comes a point, as New Democrat Gilles Bisson noted in reaction to the introduction of the young driver bill, when politicians have to admit "we can't legislate everything."
In the end, McGuinty may be done in more by his fetish for risk-management and tidy-up time -- the incessant super-Dad --than anything he does or doesn't do on large matters of the economy.
Yesterday, Premier Dad was at it again when he was asked to comment on the huge opposition to the bill that's grown up among young people on Facebook.
The first part of his answer was bizarre. He applauded the participation of young people in the discussion about road safety. But he wanted to know "what responsibilities are they prepared to undertake to provide us with some assurances that they will do what they need to do to keep our roads safe?"
Talk about reverse onus. What's next? Having LCBO clerks demand assurances before making a sale that purchasers will not get tipsy?
The second part of the premier's answer was even odder.
He said he wasn't sure that young people would come to committees to make presentations at public hearings on the bill.
"I think we need to find a way to get onto Facebook. . . . I talk to my kids about this, they say: 'You're not going to make me go to a committee hearing, are you? When did you invent those, in the 1700s?' "
Let's leave aside the fact the premier has already banned civil servants from using Facebook and seems to have had a conversion experience on the merits of social networking.
Since when were premiers in the business of dissing a form of government that is a model for the world? Or a century in which a lot of really cool stuff was invented?
What next? Will the premier be mocking Confederation as an outdated concept because it happened, like, back in 1867, or whatever?
Not only is McGuinty subject to recurring doubts of Dad-ism. He's becoming that worst kind of middle-aged Dad --the Dad trying to be hip.
Jim Coyle writes on provincial affairs for Mercury news services.
http://news.guelphmercury.com/Opinions/article/408843
Monday, November 17, 2008
Love the plugs from a greiving Father
Sure I'm sympathetic for the death of anyone especially young adults who's parents lack parenting skillls, and just throw cash at adolesence.
We have Mr. Mulcahy, who buys his son a car with more horsepower then anyone would ever need on any road in the GTA, I can only dream of having a such car, a car that I would never be able to afford for that matter.
So his son sits in a bar up north, gets pissed up with a few friends, drinking booze like prohibition was about to be enacted!
Hops into the car pissed up, that Daddy bought him,smashed into a guarddrail, down the embankment and dies a horrific death with his two friends, luckily his girlfriend escaped with minor injuries.
I wonder if Mr. Mulcahy paid his son's insurance or bar tab, where was the server's head when serving these young ADULTS, so many questions and all we get is yellow journalism at it's finest!
Does anyone have any pictures of Father Mulcahy without him plugging his company?
And anyone can get a private members BILL passed with a pocket full of cash just ask the Dalton Gang and view BILL126!
Thursday, November 13, 2008
OPP officer cleared of stunt-driving charge
OPP officer cleared of stunt-driving charge
Racism behind allegation, constable says
Posted By GALEN EAGLE, EXAMINER COURT WRITER
Posted 2 days ago
Peterborough County OPP Const. Lloyd Tapp was found not guilty yesterday on charges of stunt driving and careless driving.
The 43-year-old officer had strong words for the fellow officer who made the allegations against him and those that investigated the case.
"Like I have been saying all along, the whole charge was a crock of lies," Tapp said. "The evidence you have heard today in court is a clear indication of the shoddy investigations of the Ontario Provincial Police."
Questioning why charges were laid against him, Tapp said he is a visible minority who has made four claims to the Ontario Human Rights Commission against the OPP since 2005.
"One might ask then, why were charges laid when such a strong prima facie case existed with a lack of evidence to even substantiate a charge?" he said. "What the public has heard today in court, the public should take heed to the type of so-called professional investigations and integrity of investigations by OPP."
Tapp was charged April 8 with driving at least 50 km/h over the speed limit and careless driving on Highway 115 in Cavan Monaghan Township on March 25.
Tapp was one of several Peterborough County OPP officers who agreed to provide security detail at Queen's Park during the release of the provincial budget March 25, court heard.
OPP Const. Brenda Donnelly travelled with Tapp to Toronto in a marked cruiser, she testified. The two left the Peterborough detachment at about 3:37 a. m. and arrived in Toronto for briefing at about 4:45 a. m., she said.
En route to Toronto, Donnelly said Tapp was driving 180 km/h along Highway 115, between 140 to 160 km/h on the 401 and was obeying the speed limit on the Don Valley Parkway.
"We started going fast, excessive speeds," she told court. "The speedometer was pointing in my direction ... it was at the 180 km/h mark. We travelled that speed for quite a ways, most of the 115."
Donnelly said she didn't say anything to Tapp because she had to work with him for the rest of the day. She made a formal police statement six days later, court heard.
Continued After Advertisement Below
Advertisement
Defence lawyer William MacKenzie questioned why Donnelly didn't stop Tapp if he was driving at such speeds.
"On your evidence, you sat there quietly while a member of the police service broke the law. You failed to uphold your duties as a sworn officer, correct," MacKenzie asked.
"Yes, yes I did," Donnelly replied.
Tapp testified he wasn't paying attention to the speedometer but was going with the flow of traffic. He said he would never drive at such "ridiculous" speeds.
"Personally, it's against my code of ethics to travel at that speed," Tapp testified.
MacKenzie argued Donnelly was a poor witness who didn't take any notes of the incident. Her testimony also diverged from her police statement, court heard. She told police Tapp travelled 180 km/h the entire way to Toronto, MacKenzie noted.
Given the 134 kilometres between the detachment and Queen's Park and the timeline Donnelly provided, MacKenzie said Tapp couldn't have driven more than 50 km/h over the speed limit.
"The mathematics don't lie here," MacKenzie said.
Justice of the peace Douglas Clark ruled the Crown did not prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Article ID# 1290712
http://www.thepeterboroughexaminer.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1290712
Racism behind allegation, constable says
Posted By GALEN EAGLE, EXAMINER COURT WRITER
Posted 2 days ago
Peterborough County OPP Const. Lloyd Tapp was found not guilty yesterday on charges of stunt driving and careless driving.
The 43-year-old officer had strong words for the fellow officer who made the allegations against him and those that investigated the case.
"Like I have been saying all along, the whole charge was a crock of lies," Tapp said. "The evidence you have heard today in court is a clear indication of the shoddy investigations of the Ontario Provincial Police."
Questioning why charges were laid against him, Tapp said he is a visible minority who has made four claims to the Ontario Human Rights Commission against the OPP since 2005.
"One might ask then, why were charges laid when such a strong prima facie case existed with a lack of evidence to even substantiate a charge?" he said. "What the public has heard today in court, the public should take heed to the type of so-called professional investigations and integrity of investigations by OPP."
Tapp was charged April 8 with driving at least 50 km/h over the speed limit and careless driving on Highway 115 in Cavan Monaghan Township on March 25.
Tapp was one of several Peterborough County OPP officers who agreed to provide security detail at Queen's Park during the release of the provincial budget March 25, court heard.
OPP Const. Brenda Donnelly travelled with Tapp to Toronto in a marked cruiser, she testified. The two left the Peterborough detachment at about 3:37 a. m. and arrived in Toronto for briefing at about 4:45 a. m., she said.
En route to Toronto, Donnelly said Tapp was driving 180 km/h along Highway 115, between 140 to 160 km/h on the 401 and was obeying the speed limit on the Don Valley Parkway.
"We started going fast, excessive speeds," she told court. "The speedometer was pointing in my direction ... it was at the 180 km/h mark. We travelled that speed for quite a ways, most of the 115."
Donnelly said she didn't say anything to Tapp because she had to work with him for the rest of the day. She made a formal police statement six days later, court heard.
Continued After Advertisement Below
Advertisement
Defence lawyer William MacKenzie questioned why Donnelly didn't stop Tapp if he was driving at such speeds.
"On your evidence, you sat there quietly while a member of the police service broke the law. You failed to uphold your duties as a sworn officer, correct," MacKenzie asked.
"Yes, yes I did," Donnelly replied.
Tapp testified he wasn't paying attention to the speedometer but was going with the flow of traffic. He said he would never drive at such "ridiculous" speeds.
"Personally, it's against my code of ethics to travel at that speed," Tapp testified.
MacKenzie argued Donnelly was a poor witness who didn't take any notes of the incident. Her testimony also diverged from her police statement, court heard. She told police Tapp travelled 180 km/h the entire way to Toronto, MacKenzie noted.
Given the 134 kilometres between the detachment and Queen's Park and the timeline Donnelly provided, MacKenzie said Tapp couldn't have driven more than 50 km/h over the speed limit.
"The mathematics don't lie here," MacKenzie said.
Justice of the peace Douglas Clark ruled the Crown did not prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Article ID# 1290712
http://www.thepeterboroughexaminer.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1290712
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Ontario judge won't budge from OPP discipline case
An Ontario judge has accused Julian Fantino's legal team of political interference and intimidation, and refused to step down from a police disciplinary case, in a surprising development that will likely delay the OPP commissioner's testimony for months.
As the police disciplinary hearing for two officers resumed Monday in Orillia, provincial Judge Leonard Montgomery responded to accusations of bias brought against him by the OPP commissioner's legal counsel last week.
Supt. Ken MacDonald and Insp. Allison Jevons are accused of neglect of duty and deceit in a case that has pitted Fantino against the the two former officers assigned to internal OPP investigations.
Montgomery told the hearing he has no intention of stepping aside in the disciplinary case, despite OPP lawyer Brian Gover's allegation he is prejudging Fantino's credibility as a witness.
The judge also accused Gover of political interference for suggesting Ontario's Attorney General's Office was ready to step in and appeal for Montgomery's removal from the case.
"It all adds up to an attempt to interfere and undermine," ruled Montgomery, who threw out Gover's motion to have him removed, and ordered Fantino's testimony to continue.
Fantino's lawyer vowed to appeal the ruling in efforts to remove Montgomery from the case, a strategy that will delay the commissioner's testimony for several months.
While working for the force's internal investigations unit, MacDonald and Jevons were ordered to look into why OPP supervisors in Eastern Ontario overlooked a case involving a local officer who allegedly attacked his wife's car with a baseball bat.
MacDonald and Jevons concluded there was misconduct in the case, prompting the police union to file a complaint alleging major problems with the investigation.
Fantino ordered a review of the investigation's findings, eventually agreed with the union, and charged both officers with neglecting their duties, and being deceitful in how they handled the investigation.
MacDonald and Jevons claim they're victims of a witch hunt inside the OPP, orchestrated by Fantino and the head of OPP's union, and claim the commissioner bowed to union pressure.
Fantino has testified allegations brought against him by the officers are "hysterical nonsense" and denied bending to the union's will.
He also insists he has no personal vendetta against the two officers
As the police disciplinary hearing for two officers resumed Monday in Orillia, provincial Judge Leonard Montgomery responded to accusations of bias brought against him by the OPP commissioner's legal counsel last week.
Supt. Ken MacDonald and Insp. Allison Jevons are accused of neglect of duty and deceit in a case that has pitted Fantino against the the two former officers assigned to internal OPP investigations.
Montgomery told the hearing he has no intention of stepping aside in the disciplinary case, despite OPP lawyer Brian Gover's allegation he is prejudging Fantino's credibility as a witness.
The judge also accused Gover of political interference for suggesting Ontario's Attorney General's Office was ready to step in and appeal for Montgomery's removal from the case.
"It all adds up to an attempt to interfere and undermine," ruled Montgomery, who threw out Gover's motion to have him removed, and ordered Fantino's testimony to continue.
Fantino's lawyer vowed to appeal the ruling in efforts to remove Montgomery from the case, a strategy that will delay the commissioner's testimony for several months.
While working for the force's internal investigations unit, MacDonald and Jevons were ordered to look into why OPP supervisors in Eastern Ontario overlooked a case involving a local officer who allegedly attacked his wife's car with a baseball bat.
MacDonald and Jevons concluded there was misconduct in the case, prompting the police union to file a complaint alleging major problems with the investigation.
Fantino ordered a review of the investigation's findings, eventually agreed with the union, and charged both officers with neglecting their duties, and being deceitful in how they handled the investigation.
MacDonald and Jevons claim they're victims of a witch hunt inside the OPP, orchestrated by Fantino and the head of OPP's union, and claim the commissioner bowed to union pressure.
Fantino has testified allegations brought against him by the officers are "hysterical nonsense" and denied bending to the union's will.
He also insists he has no personal vendetta against the two officers
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Another joke from the Liberals
http://www.petitiononline.com/Cruise08/petition.html
It was announced Monday, November 3, that Bill 117 (Highway Traffic Amendment Act (Child Passengers on Motorcycles), 2008) passed first reading. It would ban all kids under 14 from being passengers on motorcycles. As a father, and as a very proud parent, who loves cruising on my motorcycle, it saddens me, that I may now have to tell my 5 year old son, that he will no longer be allowed to join Daddy for any more rides until he's 14 years of age. For a year now, my son, has had the privilege of little jaunts on Daddy's ride around the neighbourhood, FULLY AND PROPERLY CLOTHED, WITH A DOT APPROVED PROPERLY FITTED HELMET, so that he could become accustomed to the proper riding and safety techniques of riding a motorcycle on the road. This is a privilege that I have allowed him, and even at 5, he has shown the maturity and respect that it takes to be a passenger on a motorcycle. This is now no longer going to be available to him!...or to anyone else out there with children, and the love to ride. I'm not stupid either, as I write this petition. I know that I am possibly considered negligent towards my son, but I know where and when I can take him. But...if I am negligent than so is our school bus systems and our city transit commissions. Should we stop putting our children on buses too?! Should we stop them from climbing the jungle gyms at our local parks?! What's next??!! If this is the case we should take them off their pedal bikes too!! I never ever wish any harm on my son, or any other child out there, but seriously, what IS next. The Ontario government persistently continues to work against the motorcyclist and motorcycling community. They continue to stereotype us as criminal outlaws and deem us irresponsible and negligent. This has to stop! The politicians who produce these laws, by simple statistics, which are just that...statistics, should further their research and not jump so hastily into law making rubbish!!
It was announced Monday, November 3, that Bill 117 (Highway Traffic Amendment Act (Child Passengers on Motorcycles), 2008) passed first reading. It would ban all kids under 14 from being passengers on motorcycles. As a father, and as a very proud parent, who loves cruising on my motorcycle, it saddens me, that I may now have to tell my 5 year old son, that he will no longer be allowed to join Daddy for any more rides until he's 14 years of age. For a year now, my son, has had the privilege of little jaunts on Daddy's ride around the neighbourhood, FULLY AND PROPERLY CLOTHED, WITH A DOT APPROVED PROPERLY FITTED HELMET, so that he could become accustomed to the proper riding and safety techniques of riding a motorcycle on the road. This is a privilege that I have allowed him, and even at 5, he has shown the maturity and respect that it takes to be a passenger on a motorcycle. This is now no longer going to be available to him!...or to anyone else out there with children, and the love to ride. I'm not stupid either, as I write this petition. I know that I am possibly considered negligent towards my son, but I know where and when I can take him. But...if I am negligent than so is our school bus systems and our city transit commissions. Should we stop putting our children on buses too?! Should we stop them from climbing the jungle gyms at our local parks?! What's next??!! If this is the case we should take them off their pedal bikes too!! I never ever wish any harm on my son, or any other child out there, but seriously, what IS next. The Ontario government persistently continues to work against the motorcyclist and motorcycling community. They continue to stereotype us as criminal outlaws and deem us irresponsible and negligent. This has to stop! The politicians who produce these laws, by simple statistics, which are just that...statistics, should further their research and not jump so hastily into law making rubbish!!
Monday, November 10, 2008
NDP alleges Liberal government interfering in OPP disciplinary hearing
Ontario's New Democrats are accusing the Liberal government of interfering in an OPP disciplinary hearing to protect commissioner Julian Fantino.Fantino's lawyer at the Police Services Act hearing for two senior OPP officers wants the adjudicator to recuse himself from the case.NDP Leader Howard Hampton told the legislature that Fantino's lawyer even boasted that he had support from senior counsel in the Ministry of the Attorney General.On Wednesday, the lawyer told the hearing that the ministry would support an appeal if the adjudicator decided against stepping down.Hampton told the legislature that sounds like the attorney general's ministry is interfering in the OPP hearing, and questioned how there could be a fair hearing.Attorney General Chris Bentley told Hampton he was wrong, and chastised the NDP leader — a former attorney general — for making comments about an ongoing hearing.On Wednesday, a ministry spokesman denied that any decision had been made to support an appeal, and a spokesman for Bentley said the minister had no part in any of the proceedings.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
