Canadian judges are often incompetent

[Argus]

I don't think I've made much secret of my disdain for Canada's judicial system, particularly with regard to how judges get appointed, and their willingness to substitute their own biases for written law. But even I assumed that people who are appointed to the bench are at least reasonably competent in basic law.

Apparently that is not the case. The judicial review of a judge in Alberta who wondered aloud why a purported sexual assault victim didn't keep her knees together gives us the information that the judge in question had very little knowledge of sexual assault law, or how to try sexual assault cases. In fact, he wasn't very familiar with criminal law at all!

Nor is this an exception. Apparently lawyers are often appointed to the bench and set to work despite having never practiced law in a particular area - like criminal law. In this case the judge's expertise was in contractual, oil and gas law!

No wonder we get so many screwy decisions from the courts! Instead of judges being exceptionally learned in the law they're ham-fisted amateurs trying to figure it out on the job!

Camp, according to an agreed statement of facts now in evidence at the CJC hearing, received no training “on the law of sexual assault or how to conduct sexual assault trials,” which are particularly tricky because of prohibitions on a complainant’s previous sexual experience and on how what’s called post-incident conduct may or may not be used.

As the transcripts of the 2014 trial show, Camp was practically begging the prosecutor, Hyatt Mograbee, for guidance on how he could or should use the testimony he’d heard, and for specific case law.

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/christie-blatchford-judge-was-wildly-unfamiliar-not-just-with-sexual-assault-law-but-with-criminal-law-itself

Edited September 10, 2016 by Argus

[dialamah]

I became convinced of the capriciousness of the justice system through my son's experience. He didn't succeed because of any built-in fairness of the system, but only because people got changed around at the last minute.

[bjre]

Canada has too many laws. Even judge are unfamiliar lots of them. How can you ask normal people not to break a law they don’t even know its existence. Most laws are meaningless and just tools for legal industry to profit from working people, it increases the cost of made-in-Canada products and services with other blood sucking blood-sucking carnivores in Canada’s economy. That is the reason that the job opportunity goes to China and other countries, and the intelligent property purchased by big companies of US when they acquire Canadian companies. So blame China or any other country is just a selfish politician’s behavior try to profit him/herself upon Canada’s lost. Only those people who can work and rely on themselves like Rob Ford can save Canada.

[cybercoma]

That judge has no integrity and should have excused himself from the trial, if he didn't have the experience to hear that case. While your intent here is to clearly say how broken the judicial system is, it's an example of how things are actually working. He's facing an inquiry which will undoubtedly lead to better training for judges going forward.

More importantly, the system worked to correct its own mistakes:

At the end of the sexual assault trial, Camp acquitted the accused, Alexander Wagar, but the Alberta Court of Appeal overturned the ruling and ordered a new trial, citing concerns over the judge's understanding of sexual assault laws.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/judge-robin-camp-inquiry-testifies-friday-1.3754972

Provincial Court Judge Bob Wilkins refused to release Wagar, who faces a retrial on a charge of sexual assault.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/robin-camp-alexander-wager-bail-denied-1.3623022

It should also be noted that the Conservatives through Justice Minister Peter Mackay actually promoted Camp to the federal court following this trial. Now I know you think anyone who's not a white male is not fit to sit as a judge, as you so thinly veiled that arguement here, but in this case we have a person who was clearly not qualified for the job and was promoted by the Conservatives.

The most important take away here is that he was wrong. The system caught its mistake and immediately corrected it. There's now an inquiry that will lead to better training, which will improve how these cases are handled going forward. You're criticizing a system that works. And for what? No other reason than you have fringe position on the judiciary that's shared by a tiny fraction of Canadians. Here you are, continuing your bizarre crusade against the courts, completely ignoring all the positive things that the judiciary did to address the issue.

Edited September 10, 2016 by cybercoma

[JamesHackerMP]

How *are* judges appointed in Canada out of curiosity?

[Guest]

How *are* judges appointed in Canada out of curiosity?

Diversity, mainly. Optics.

Of course, they do have to know something about the law, but it's often not the first or most important criteria in the process.

Edited September 10, 2016 by bcsapper

[?Impact]

More importantly, the system worked to correct its own mistakes:

Yes, in this case the system worked. The real question is how often is it not caught.

You do point out the biggest weakness however, the fact that this obviously incompetent judge (not so much in the case before him, but the fact that he didn't recuse himself) was promoted by the politicians. What was Peter MacKay thinking? Mind you the Conservatives also appointed Vic Toews to the court of Queens Bench in Manitoba, so thinking is not their strong suit.

[Argus]

Yes, in this case the system worked. The real question is how often is it not caught.

You do point out the biggest weakness however, the fact that this obviously incompetent judge (not so much in the case before him, but the fact that he didn't recuse himself) was promoted by the politicians. What was Peter MacKay thinking? Mind you the Conservatives also appointed Vic Toews to the court of Queens Bench in Manitoba, so thinking is not their strong suit.

Naturally you had to make this political. It is about the system, not who uses it. Do you think judges appointed by the Liberals are all much more highly qualified in criminal law before they take the bench?

And the only reason the 'system worked' in this case was because this idiot made the inflammatory comment about keeping her knees together, which got huge mileage and led to the rest. If he hadn't said that nobody would have paid this the slightest attention. So how many other judges who know very little about criminal law are trying criminal cases? For that matter, how many who know little about maritime law or contract law are trying those cases? Why isn't there something in the system that places judges with their area of expertise?

It's like hiring a surgeon and having him do brain surgery. He's not a brain surgeon! You need a brain surgeon for that! You don't have a brain surgeon doing heart surgery either!

Can they do it? Well, perhaps, but I sure as hell wouldn't want them operating on me!

Diversity, mainly. Optics.

Of course, they do have to know something about the law, but it's often not the first or most important criteria in the process.

You forgot they have to be partisans of the party that appoints them.

[Queenmandy85]

How *are* judges appointed in Canada out of curiosity?

Judges are appointed by the Crown on advice from the Prime Minister.

[?Impact]

How *are* judges appointed in Canada out of curiosity?

Judges are appointed by the Crown on advice from the Prime Minister.

It depends on which court they are being appointed to. For example, Ontario has the Court of Justice, the Superior Court of Justice, and the Court of Appeal. Federally we have the Federal Court, the Federal Court of Appeal, the Tax Court of Canada, Military Courts, the Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada, and the Supreme Court of Canada.

Note that recently the appointment process for the Supreme Court of Canada was revised.

[SpankyMcFarland]

Hard to assess how well we measure up against other countries in the judging. I must say I have been impressed with the few Canadian judges I have encountered professionally and socially. They have been polite and modest. Some that I haven't met have said the darnedest things but that phenomenon is not confined to Canada. Here is Peter Cook making fun of biased remarks made many years ago by an English judge during the trial of politician Jeremy Thorpe:

http://youtu.be/Kyos-M48B8U

We should also remember that some of them are quite old and may be losing wattage upstairs.

Edited September 11, 2016 by SpankyMcFarland

[Scott Mayers]

I couldn't determine anything this judge said without knowing the literal context that the media had not presented. Judges are still people who have a right to opinion of which we CAN use to help determine whether we continue using those people. I don't particularly like simply the fact we are asked to 'swear to speak the truth' in context to some Bible that is somehow magically assumed to assure the person's integrity. In actuality, its intent is to help indicate to others whether the person being sworn in is or is not religious and to which religion they associate with. So simply up front, the court is biased in all systems this way.

What would have happened had a judge commented to some guy that he should learn to keep his dick in his pants....even to some relative participant in the case NOT on trial but who may have either contributed to the problem OR was a victim? I doubt this would have been an issue. And the reason why it is is due to the ever more present tendency to favor women as default innocent vulnerable children. I wouldn't have favored such an inverse statement to a man in this way. But I wouldn't think it had anything to do with the credibility of the judge, just to the bias he or she represented in that case. We need more information to determine the context regardless.

[cybercoma]

So how many other judges who know very little about criminal law are trying criminal cases?

Where on earth do you get the idea he doesn't know the law? He seems to know the law just fine but like a doctor with appalling bedside manner, he revictimized the complainant. He wasn't trained on how to handle people who've been traumatized by sexual assault. You're making an awfully big assumption claiming someone whole spent years in law school, even more as a lawyer, then finally more as a judge doesn't know the law. His problem wasn't his legal knowledge; it was his practice.

[cybercoma]

What would have happened had a judge commented to some guy that he should learn to keep his dick in his pants....

Probably the exact same thing if the guy he said it to was the one who was raped by another guy, Consider it in that context and maybe hen you can see why his comments to the woman were so disgusting. Edited September 11, 2016 by cybercoma

[Scott Mayers]

Probably the exact same thing if the guy he said it to was the one who was raped by another guy, Consider it in that context and maybe hen you can see why his comments to the woman were so disgusting.

Yes, of course it would HAVE to be another guy, right? Ha ha...now turn that into "a woman" and think this through again. Then such a remark might be said in light of 'advice'. There IS a double standard here. There has been worse male-bashing commenting that gets trivialized everywhere as though a 'man' should be default able to take it or be considered a wimp or coward.

And it is also in this latest few years that a rise in unsubstantiated claims of abuses get published without one's capacity to a fair trial. Think Jian Gomeshi or Bill Cosby. If you default to assume should they be found guilty for offense after the fact of some successful conviction where possible that the end justified the original accusation, you have to ask whether the public accusations themselves are the cause of successful convictions rather than the facts of a case.

Like I said, I remain neutral without knowing context. If a judge can comment to someone found guilty, are they not allowed to also comment on anyone else in the same case for their opinion of the case? For example, if some particular person is found to frequently make accusations and take these to court repeatedly, even if all their charges against each other person is 'valid', it might suggest that there is a pattern of choice selection that some person has the actual POWER to avoid in order to diminish the continued abuses. A comment would thus be warranted even if the public or jury are not permitted to KNOW of past prior cases of the same person making charges. This is just one possible example of likely many.

[Scott Mayers]

Reminds me of a friend who complained how some 'creeps' in the bar keep expecting her to feel obliged for simply buying her a drink. I suggested that she should learn to turn down a free drink and she'd save herself the trouble. She, as in many women, will go 'underfunded' to a bar, expecting free drinks. This is a form of abuse to which most would trivialize and opt to agree with her that the other men are certainly 'creeps'. Why?

(and was MY comment out of order?)

Edited September 11, 2016 by Scott Mayers

[Bob Macadoo]

It's like hiring a surgeon and having him do brain surgery. He's not a brain surgeon! You need a brain surgeon for that! You don't have a brain surgeon doing heart surgery either!

Can they do it? Well, perhaps, but I sure as hell wouldn't want them operating on me.

No it's like having the heart surgeon working the ER in triage. He knows all the parts (eg. procedures, rules of order, etc.) and can stop the bleeding so he can review your vitals (eg. read the testimony and case law) so he can develop the proper treatment. The problem here is the goof inserted his opinion/bias (eg. You need to quit smoking) before reviewing your vitals.

[Guest]

Reminds me of a friend who complained how some 'creeps' in the bar keep expecting her to feel obliged for simply buying her a drink. I suggested that she should learn to turn down a free drink and she'd save herself the trouble. She, as in many women, will go 'underfunded' to a bar, expecting free drinks. This is a form of abuse to which most would trivialize and opt to agree with her that the other men are certainly 'creeps'. Why?

(and was MY comment out of order?)

It comes down to freedom of choice, and being an arsehole. Your friend is being an arsehole, (Excuse me if I offend), but that's not against the law. Anyone who expects favours in return for a drink is being an arsehole, but that also is not against the law.

Anyone who acts on that belief (without consent from the drinker, of course) is breaking the law.

Edited September 11, 2016 by bcsapper

[?Impact]

I don't particularly like simply the fact we are asked to 'swear to speak the truth' in context to some Bible that is somehow magically assumed to assure the person's integrity.

I prefer the Chinese chicken oath. This happened in a B.C. court room in 1902 and included the decapitation of a live chicken followed by the incineration of the written oath - see Rex v Ah Woocy, 9 B.C. 569

[Argus]

No it's like having the heart surgeon working the ER in triage. He knows all the parts (eg. procedures, rules of order, etc.) and can stop the bleeding so he can review your vitals (eg. read the testimony and case law) so he can develop the proper treatment. The problem here is the goof inserted his opinion/bias (eg. You need to quit smoking) before reviewing your vitals.

No, the problem here is the guy had never practiced criminal law in Canada. Ever. So he read criminal law back in university twenty five years ago. That's good enough for you to run a criminal court? Do you have any idea how complex law in Canada is? This guy has spent his entire life working on contracts and specializing in oil and gas issues. Suddenly he's trying a sexual assault case? That's ridiculous.

[The_Squid]

No, the problem here is the guy had never practiced criminal law in Canada. Ever. So he read criminal law back in university twenty five years ago. That's good enough for you to run a criminal court? Do you have any idea how complex law in Canada is? This guy has spent his entire life working on contracts and specializing in oil and gas issues. Suddenly he's trying a sexual assault case? That's ridiculous.

You're right.... The Cnservative gov't screwed up... The appeals court worked... There's an inquiry... System worked to correct itself.

[JamesHackerMP]

Wait, appointed by the Crown on the advice of the PM? Meaning, in practical terms, they're appointed by prime ministerial fiat?

Edited September 13, 2016 by JamesHackerMP

[Peter F]

Yup.

[Argus]

You're right.... The Cnservative gov't screwed up...

It really doesn't bother you at all that this sort of thing happens regularly, does it? The integrity of the system is a meaningless concept. All you can think about is how to make snide remarks about the tories.

Your life views seem about as complex as Donald Trump's. No wonder you're wearing his hat.

Edited September 13, 2016 by Argus

[The_Squid]

It really doesn't bother you at all that this sort of thing happens regularly, does it? The integrity of the system is a meaningless concept. All you can think about is how to make snide remarks about the tories.

Your life views seem about as complex as Donald Trump's. No wonder you're wearing his hat.

You skipped the remainder of the post...

The appeals court worked... There's an inquiry... System worked to correct itself.