Justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done: except, perhaps, when a taxpayer tries to prosecute Kathleen Wynne – part 4

In Part 1 of this series, I explained a little of the background of the ongoing Presto scandal, which has already cost Ontario taxpayers half-a-billion dollars – and how a concerned taxpayer (hereafter referred to as CT) had searched for who was behind this…and discovered the documents had been signed by none other than Kathleen Wynne, then Ontario Minister of Transportation and now the Premier of Ontario.

In Part 2 of this series, I explained a bit of how the Canadian/Ontario justice system function:  in order to safeguard from a government that will either fail to bring charges against certain individuals or will not uphold certain laws, each and every citizen has the power to, as a private person, lay criminal charges.  However, this safety-valve (a citizen-empowering protection against a corrupt government) is immediately eviscerated by permitting the government of the day, called ‘The Crown’ and represented by the office of the Attorney General of Ontario, who both employs all the crown prosecutors and is appointed by/serves at the pleasure of the Premier of Ontario, can take over any private prosecution and stay the charges for ever….and the example of Gary McHale in Caledonia was explained.  (This very legal precedent was cited heavily by The Crown representative in this court hearing.)

In Part 3 of this series, I explained a bit about the concept of ‘summary dismissal’ – using the example of Baglow vs. Free Dominion and John Does as an example.

Thus, we find ourselves on the morning of the 18th of August, 2014, in the Ottawa Elgin Street courthouse,where the hearing between our concerned taxpayer (CT) and The Crown (which too over his prosecution of Kathleen Wynne, the former Transportation Minister of Ontario and the current Premier of Ontario, whose signature on documents seems to suggest she used undue pressure to force Ottawa and Toronto transportation authorities (meaning ‘government-usurped monopolies’) to use an outdated and overpriced ‘Presto’ system in place of competitively awarded contractors to provide an electronic public transit system payment method).  The CT laid private criminal charges against Kathleen Wynne, as a private individual, for wasting over half-a-billion of taxpayers money in an ongoing action, which CT perceives as criminal.  The Crown took over this private prosecution and shelved it – so it would never see the light of day or be acted upon.  Which CT protested against, and it was these protests that The Crown wanted to be summarily dismissed.  As ‘The Crown’ answers directly to the Attorney General, who is appointed by and serves at the pleasure of the Premier, Kathleen Wynne, CT challenged this on the grounds of conflict of interest.

The setting is the palatial Elgin St. Court Building in downtown Ottawa, smack dab next to the Ottawa City Hall (with its cheap underground parking – seriously, you’d be hard-pressed to find cheaper parking anywhere else in downtown Ottawa).

The courthouse itself is very, very beautiful.

The core of the building is open – from the first floor all the way to the top, filled with light.  I entered on the 1st floor (the underground basement floor houses the prisoner cells), from the City Hall side, walked past the Tim Hortons and was just about to head to the 2nd floor, where the main,  Elgin Street entrance, is with its information booth to find out which courtroom this hearing will be held in.

As I passed the Tim Hortons, I saw Beth Trudeau and a group of other people walking towards the stairs.  As I caught up to them, Beth introduced me all around:  there was Jack MacLaren.  Another was Jean-Serge Brisson. Another was the concerned taxpayer, CT, in a crisp dark suit, with a light shirt and a finely striped tie.  They, too, were in search of the proper courtroom.

The information desk people, you see, my dear reader, were completely baffled as to why CT might be showing up for court today – they certainly had no record of him or his hearing!

So, the little band of corruption fighters was directed to ask at the criminal courts booth – since this is a criminal case, these people were bound to know where to go!

I must admit, when he walked up to the booth, I stayed rudely close so that I may hear the conversation.  Bad manners on my part, perhaps, but I did want to bring you as much of the story as I could…  Everybody else stood a polite distance apart.

The pretty young woman with a ready smile who worked the booth was very pleasant, but quite definite – CT might as well go home as there is no hearing scheduled for him for that day…

CT – a very pleasant fellow, tall, broad-shouldered with eyes so deep one could loose oneself in them forever – was insistent:  he was given official notice that his case was to be heard today and he would very much like somebody to tell him which courtroom to go to.  Charming and polite – yet determined, with steel in his spine!  The pretty young woman frowned, creasing a wrinkle in her otherwise unblemished forehead, and left.

An older, more knowledgeable-mannered woman came in a few minutes and took her place.  CT smiled and asked where his hearing was to be held.  Shuffling the papers authoritatively, the senior woman, too, insisted that there was nothing on the schedule for the day that even remotely resembled the case he was talking about.  As she was telling him that he must be mistaken in the day his hearing was to be held, the younger woman joined her and shook her head in eager assent.

At this point, CT took out the paper with his official notice of the hearing, to be held today, in this courthouse.

‘Oh, THAT case!’

Of course they knew about THAT case!  It was to be held in courtroom #34!

The younger woman even volunteered that they had been discussing this very case just earlier that morning…

Which, of course, begs the question:  if they had been discussing this case just earlier this morning, how come they had both claimed never to have heard of it before?

Should this be chalked up to simple bureaucratic incompetence, or is the fact that they are employed by the people whose boss answers to Kathleen Wynne, the subject of this lawsuit?

I guess we will never know…


More to follow in Part 5 of this narrative.