Hamilton's Finest

Big Lady Justice hosts a music & talk radio show Saturday afternoons 2:30pm on McMaster's Student radio station, CFMU, 93.3 on the FM Dial. 

Regular scheduling resumes after Mac's football & basketball seasons.

Hamilton's Finest is a rebel feminist, female perspective on music with a focus on Jazz, socio-legal issues, the economy and current events.

Visit: http://cfmu.msumcmaster.ca/

Click on: Programming

Under the Saturday Column, click on, 'Hamilton's Finest' 

To download Podcasts, see Past Shows, click on:  27.10.2012. 

Past guests on Hamilton's Finest have included Dante Ryel, an activist and leader from Citizens Climate Lobby. Dante discussed carbon fees. 

Michael Desnoyers, a leader from Hamiltonians for Progressive Development, also appeared as a guest. Michael discussed the Airport Employment Growth District (AEGD), also known as Aerotropolis.

The Law Society's discriminating practice of disciplining Minorities and Women

As part of the Law Society`s Civility Complaints Protocol, the Law Society targets people from non-traditional backgrounds, Women and Minorities.

In essence, the Law Society`s message is that Mothers of these minority lawyers failed as Mothers.

These minority Mothers apparently failed to raise their children properly, by failing to make their children civilized enough for the Law Society`s ilk and kind.

When the Law Society discriminates against the "accent"  or "tone" of female or minority lawyers, it refers to the lawyer's "accent" or "tone" as "behaviour".

The Law Society makes discriminating statements about the "tone" of female and minority lawyers in Conduct Applications.

In a pre-hearing conference, the Law Society made discriminating statements about the accent of a minority, female lawyer whose mother is from the Caribbean.

The discriminating behaviour of the Law Society of Upper Canada Prevails (but don`t say anything about it, because you may be accused of being rude or uncivil!)

To view the sworn affidavit of a Filipina mother of a female, Hamilton lawyer, go to:

http://lnkd.in/k5TnPG

July 2012

Pic of Big Mama Justice Living Large!! - July 2012 

Protecting the Great Lakes Forever

Great Lakes Need Great Friends

Protecting The Great Lakes Forever

The Great Lakes of North America form the largest group of freshwater lakes in the world, holding more than 20 per cent of the world’s surface freshwater and 95 per cent of North America’s. They provide life and livelihood to more than 40 million people and are the economic centre at the heart of the continent. Yet the Great Lakes of North America are in serious trouble. Multipoint pollution, climate change, over-extraction, invasive species, and wetland loss are all taking their toll on the watershed.

With a patchwork of limited government protection that is hampered by inadequate funding and differing political priorities, the Lakes urgently need people to join together to forge a new future for them, one that will ensure the Lakes will thrive for generations to come. To help forge links and build relationships in communities surrounding the Great Lakes’ waters, the Council of Canadians has launched the “Great Lakes Need Great Friends” tour.

Visiting eight Canadian cities, and with allied groups, several U.S. cities the “Great Lakes Needs Great Friends” Tour will help:

• Foster connections along the Great Lakes by making the links between current fights against threats such as fracking, bottled water withdrawals, invasive species, and nuclear waste storage and shipments;
• Cultivate a Great Lakes stewardship by encouraging people to recognize they not only have a right, but a responsibility to protect the Great Lakes’ waters;
• Invite community involvement and encourage inspiring actions that will help shift the current market economy priorities that govern the Great Lakes to priorities based on commons and public trust principles.

Protecting the future of the Great Lakes is in all of our hands. When communities come together with passion and purpose, they can change political priorities and shape a better future for our shared water. We invite communities and organizations to join us in this exciting campaign to build a new Great Lakes commons vision that prioritizes people and the environment over industry and commodification, and builds a healthy vibrant future for our shared water.

Hail Holy Queen

If my Call to the Bar of Ontario doesn't work out . . .my call from God will.
Here's a clip of the reverence and solemnity of Hail Holy Queen from our nun-conventional choir! Undeniably reverent tones and words!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LgsBGekN43g

Jacques J. Menard; Judith M. Potter - Shockingly Rude and Sarcastic

Individuals present at the Law Society hearings in March and June 2011 were appalled at the shockingly rude, horrible, insulting behaviour of Ms. Judith Marilyn Potter (London lawyer) and Chair Mr. Jacques Joseph Menard (Kingston lawyer) 

Mr. Jacques Menard graduated in 1981 from Windsor Law School.
He was called to the Bar of Ontario in 1983.

Mr. Jacques Menard practises law in Kingston, Ontario. 

His rude behaviour as Chair of the LSUC Hearing Panel brings disrepute to the profession. There is no over-sight over LSUC Hearing Panels. Benchers and lay-benchers can get very personal, very rude and abusive. Jacques Menard was observed behaving this way by those in attendance in March 2011 and June 2011 at the LSUC v Bruce hearing, LCN 131/10.

Ms. Potter's offensive, horrible behaviour certainly did NOT inspire professionalism, civility, nor a spirit of community or colleagiality.

Where is Judith Potter's leadership and civility in her shocking behaviour? 


In a paper written by Judith Marilyn Potter in May 2007, entitled "Leadership in the Non-Profit Sector" she wrote:
 " .   .   .your volunteer activities are a powerful legacy. You are setting an example for your colleagues, your community at large, and most important, for your children or those whose lives you directly influence.  .  . "
                         Eight Colloquiem on the Legal Profession: The Challenges of Leadership

wow, now consider Ms. Potter's example she sets  -- as you read (below) Ms. Potter's statements from the LSUC v Bruce, LCN131/10 transcript.


Judith Potter's rude, argumentative tone shocked those in attendance in March and June 2011.



Ms. Potter's sarcasm and ridicule of a lawyer with laryngitis brings disrepute to herself personally, professionally and to the administration of justice. She has not demonstrated civility or leadership qualities as a shockingly rude, petulant Panelist.

Big Lady Justice had laryngitis.

Transcript of Proceedings dated March 21, 2011, LSUC v Bruce, LCN 131/10, page 9.

the CHAIR Jacques Menard: We are working with a bit of a mystery there, bit of a gap.


Ms. Judith Potter: Thank you very much (to Ms. Suzanne Jarvie)


Ms. Bruce: I wanted to indicate that I have laryngitis, so I can’t project my voice as I would.


Ms. Potter: I’m afraid you are going to have to speak up a bit. (Ms. Potter's tone was forceful and argumentative)


Ms. Bruce: I can’t actually because it’s too painful. I have laryngitis, and if I do that, I tend to have coughing bouts. I’m letting you know that it is very difficult for me to raise my voice above what I can say right now because of the laryngitis. I don’t know if that might be a problem.


THE CHAIR Jacques Menard: Ms. Bruce, this is going to be difficult for us because with grey hair maybe comes experience, but also sometimes our hearing isn’t as great as it should be. I’m certainly a little feeble on one side, so I echo Ms. Potter’s concerns with making sure – we absolutely want to hear everything you have to say. I will go ahead and see how it is, but I think we will taking our lead from each other as to whetehr we can hear you well enough to proceed.


Page 10
the CHAIR Jacques Menard: Please go ahead and let’s see how it works.


Ms. Bruce: Certainly I will make my best efforts, but so you are aware that I can’t physically actually talk louder because my voice won’t go louder.


Ms. Potter: Is this a temporary condition or permanent? Is this a temporary thing, this laryngitis or WHATEVER? (rude, mocking tone)


Ms. Bruce: I don’t think laryngitis is ever permanent.


Ms. Potter: Did you say that this is something temporary that you have some laryngitis that you can’t speak up any more, or is this how you always speak? (Ms. Judith Potter's tone was sarcastic, rude and mocking)


Ms. Bruce: No. I have lost my voice since last Friday. I have been whispering since last Friday.


THE CHAIR Jacques Menard: We are going to take a very temporary measure here, which I think is: Ms. Bruce, come over to this chair here if you could with your materials so that you can address us a little more closely. Then we are going to break to make some decisions with regard to these preliminary matters, and they will set up a system so you can sit and be very close to a microphone.


March 23, 2011 - Snowday/School Closures in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada


Ms. Judith POTTER: So given that she is supposedly sick today, there was nothing further requested or provided, Is that correct? (page 17, lines 22-24 of March 23, 2011 transcript of proceeding, LSUC v Bruce, LCN131/10)


Big Lady Justice's larygitis worsened by March 23, 2011. She could not travel to Toronto on this snow day.


Individuals present throughout the LSUC v Bruce hearing were aghast at the highly personal, sarcastic and shockingly rude behaviour from the Chair Jacques Menard and Judith Potter.


Their behaviour brought into question their questionable fitness to perform their duties as Panelists.

Would you retain Jacques Menard or Judith Potter to represent you? Or would you prefer a normal, respectful, civil lawyer?

Joseph Groia's Discipline hearing before a LSUC Hearing Panel

"An Evolving Sensitivity to Civility" - Peter L. Roy of Roy, Elliot O'Connor

Mr. Joseph Groia's discipline hearing continues this week. Joseph Groia represented John Felderhof before the Ontario Securities Commission.

Big Lady Justice sat through several days of Mr. Groia's hearing during the last 2 weeks.

On August 8, 2011, Mr. Peter Roy (Roy, Elliot O'Connor)  appeared as a Witness for Joseph Groia. Mr. Roy was called to the Bar of Ontario in 1976. In April 1997, Mr. Roy was retained by BMO and Nesbitt Burns to head up the Mining Litigation aspect of the defence after the announcement of the results in Bre X Minerals.

Mr. Peter L. Roy was asked his perspective on the civility issue. Since his early career, he has seen how the "the whole approach to civility has become sensitized."
Mr. Roy expressed  his view of an "evolving sensitivity to civility".

In Mr. Roy's re-examination, he was given the opportunity to elaborate on his view of an evolving sensitivity to Civility. Joseph Groia's lawyer Earl Cherniak asked Mr. Roy, "   . .  .has it [civility] been evolving in the last 10 years?" Mr. Roy answered, "I think it has, much more so now. People are much more sensitive to it, than they were ten years ago, or even five years go."

Mr. Peter Roy said, "I take tone to be inflection and presentation . . . I don't know how you get that from a transcript". (the late, Honourable Justice Archie Campbell had discussed tone).

Law Society's Civility Protocols for Ontario Lawyers

Big Lady Justice has a reasoned suspicion that these "Civility Complaints Protocols" were developed with a view to using them specifically against Joseph Groia (with significant contribution from Justice Michael Code). Throughout Joseph Groia’s discipline hearing, Big Lady Justice has not overheard anything he said before the OSC that could be considered uncivil or rude, and certainly nothing that would rise to the level of meriting a discipline proceeding.

Is it uncivil to ask for complete and full disclosure in hard copy? Is it uncivil to make legal argument? Is it uncivil to allege prosecutorial misconduct? Is it uncivil to use metaphors? Is it uncivil to represent an undesirable client? Is it uncivil to have your undesirable client acquitted of charges before the OSC?

The Law Society’s outrageous discipline hearing against Joseph Groia brings disrepute to the administration of justice.


Check out W. A. Derry Millar's statement on "Civility Complaints Protocols".(http://www.lsuc.on.ca/media/convmay10_treasuers_report.pdf).

His statement provides little, substantive context for exigent circumstances that allegedly necessitated the Judiciary's "Civility Complaints Protocols".

"Over the past year, the Law Society has developed and
implemented a plan to promote effective exchanges of
information between the Law Society and the judiciary. The
Civility Complaints Protocols were introduced in September
2009, providing mechanisms for judges and justices of the
peace to refer to the Law Society incidents of inappropriate
conduct on the part of lawyers and paralegals appearing in
their courts. These protocols also provide a new process
whereby referred lawyers can receive mentoring from senior
members of the bar."


In essence, the "Civility Complaints Protocol" is a judicial mechanism for judges' to complain about lawyers. This "plan" facilitates judicial complaints "between the Law Society and the judiciary", not public complaints.  Interestingly, W.A Derry Millar does not mention section 63 of the Judges Act, a mechanism for lawyers and lay persons to complain about judicial misconduct.

Quite unlike Peter Roy's evidence of an evolving sensitivity to civility, Derry Millar represents a "decline in civility".

" . . . complaints to the Law Society
related to incivility have increased from 11 per cent of all
complaints received in 2004 to 35 per cent in 2009. Both the
Honourable Coulter Osborne’s 2007 report on the Civil Justice
Reform Project and the 2008 Report of the Review of Large and
Complex Case Procedures by the Honourable Patrick LeSage,
Q.C., and the Honourable Mr. Justice Michael Code addressed
this increase in incivility among legal service providers . . . "

What is interesting about W.A. Derry Millar's characterizations and representations is the spate of information he does not provide. W.A. Derry Millar did not provide his view of what  "related to civility" means. Is bringing a disclosure motion "uncivil"? Is bring a recusal motion "uncivil"?


W.A. Derry Millar's statements further represents,

" Participants offered various reasons for the decline in civility,

including the increased size and diversity of the bar that has led

to fewer close personal relationships among professionals that

traditionally helped maintain good standards of behaviour . .  "


For some reason, W.A. Derry Millar did not elaborate on why some participants offered "diversity" of the bar as one of the reasons offered to explain the decline in civility.
Does W.A. Derry Millar believe this too?  Did W.A. Derry Millar conduct a "Diversity Forum" with 800 participants? I didn't get the invitation.

Why didn't W.A. Derry Millar explain the alleged causality between "diversity of the bar" leading to "fewer close relationships among professionals"? what?!  what does that mean? ? Where is the evidence to support this?
Why did the former Treasurer include this in his statement, and then not bother to explain it?
Did these participants sit around and complain about the bar's growing diversity?
Isn't it quite curious that diversity of the bar is proffered as a reason by some participants as a reason to explain the alleged "decline in civility"?
What are the demographics of these 800 participants?
Why wasn't the entire profession consulted? W.A. Derry Millar's statement does not acknowledge the evolving sensitivity of recusal motions.

Were these 800 representatives a representative sample of the 42,000 licensed lawyers in Ontario?
W. A. Derry Millar's report does not provide stats on the percentage of public complaints not acted upon, compared to the percentage of judicial complaints not acted upon.

W. A. Derry Millar's report does not discuss the application of the Judiciary's Civility Complaints Protocol. So far, the Judiciary's Civility Complaints Protocol has been disproportionately against female, sole practitioners including female lawyers from "diverse" backgrounds (e.g. Caribbean, Filipino ethnic backgrounds). Of course, the LSUC does not want to highlight this. 

Michael McKiernan is not a lawyer. Glenn Kauth isn't either

The unknowledgeable opinions of Michael McKiernan of the Law Times highlight the fact Michael McKiernan never attended law school. Michael McKieran is not a lawyer.  Glenn Kauth isn't either.  Both do not understand the significance of basic legal issues, nor do they fully grasp the importance of due diligence before trying to write intelligibly about legal ethics and legal issues to an audience of legal readers.