Court Appearances and Canadian Legal Terms

[Tamarind]

Section 28.05 does not state it in its entirety ... only in 28.05 (2) as it relates to lack of representation.

I don't understand why you think this rule is being overlooked. Basically 28.05 (2) says the pre-trial conferences must be held behind closed doors if the accused does not have representation (which is not the case for DM and MS) ... for all other pre-trial conferences, they are open to the public unless closed at a judge's discretion under 2.01.

It also says :

28.05 (1) Unless otherwise ordered by the pre-trial conference judge under rule 2.01, a pre-trial conference in a case where all parties are represented by counsel, shall be conducted in a pre-trial conference room, judges’ chambers or other suitable room in the courthouse where a full and frank discussion of the issues raised in the proceedings may take place.

Judges chambers and conference rooms are not open to the public- so safe to assume that this means a place away from public view as with 28-05 (2)

 

[Tamarind]

Interesting Juballee ... apparently DP is not yet on record but he was there .. so maybe DM declined to have DP represent him or said he hasn't decided, and thus the unexpected, sudden order by the judge. Don't know how that might constitute of interest to the public or controversial though.

Why pay for a lawyer along the way for appearances you can do yourself. I would wait till later and in the meantime be reading the whole disclosure myself. JMO

 

[Alethea Dice]

I think, as ABro said, the pre-trial conference is different than the pre-trial motions. My understanding was that the pre-trial conference is when they discuss how long they think the trial will last, how many witnesses they expect to call, etc. The link provided also states that, if the accused are represented by counsel, they don't need to attend the pre-trial conference. Also, the Superior Court website says:

The judge presiding at the pre-trial conference cannot preside at the trial without the agreement of both the Crown and accused person, although he or she will prepare a report to the trial judge. The report cannot make any reference to resolution discussions.

The pre-trial conference was held back in October 2013 with the Provincial Judge, John Takach, and was held in private with the Judge and the attorneys.

The morning began with a private judicial pretrial meeting between Takach, Crown attorneys Leitch and Craig Fraser, Millard's lawyer Deepak Paradkar and a representative from the office of Thomas Dungey, the lawyer representing Smich. Together, they began laying out the trial plan.

http://www.thespec.com/news-story/4168610-tim-bosma-court-case-an-endurance-test-for-family/

 

[ABro]

I think, as ABro said, the pre-trial conference is different than the pre-trial motions. My understanding was that the pre-trial conference is when they discuss how long they think the trial will last, how many witnesses they expect to call, etc. The link provided also states that, if the accused are represented by counsel, they don't need to attend the pre-trial conference. Also, the Superior Court website says:

The pre-trial conference was held back in October 2013 with the Provincial Judge, John Takach, and was held in private with the Judge and the attorneys.

http://www.thespec.com/news-story/4168610-tim-bosma-court-case-an-endurance-test-for-family/

This is correct. The terminology is confusing because it's not always used consistently.

Also, there was at least one other pre-trial conference, after the indictment, with a Superior court judge -- Turnbull if I recall correctly.

Pre-trial motions are in a courtroom with everyone there. Funnily enough, I was in and out of PTM for a sexual assault trial recently and they sealed the courtroom on more than one occasion. It's still on my checklist of things to look into. I was very confused about what was going on and why -- although I suspected it might have been issues relating to prior sexual history.

 

[Tamarind]

This is correct. The terminology is confusing because it's not always used consistently.

Also, there was at least one other pre-trial conference, after the indictment, with a Superior court judge -- Turnbull if I recall correctly.

Pre-trial motions are in a courtroom with everyone there. Funnily enough, I was in and out of PTM for a sexual assault trial recently and they sealed the courtroom on more than one occasion. It's still on my checklist of things to look into. I was very confused about what was going on and why -- although I suspected it might have been issues relating to prior sexual history.

The point about why the courtroom may have been closed was made before anyone knew what was happening at the court HTH

I guess the courtroom was closed yesterday regardless of which type of hearing was taking place.

 

[matou]

Maybe DM is going to represent himself? Lol?

 

[Tealgrove]

"Documents from Monday also confirm that Deepak Paradkar and Ravin Pillay, the Toronto defence team that has been representing Millard, have not yet been retained. Glithero expects to be "advised of progress in completing (the) retainer of Mr. Paradkar and Pillay" on April 30, the documents say."

http://www.thespec.com/opinion-stor...sma-family-press-barred-from-pretrial-motions

 

[Sillybilly]

How did information from yesterday's in-camera session become public?

 

[swedie]

Mandatory Mediation or Plea Negotiation? Civil and Criminal Process have pretty much the same format. MOO.

Understanding the Civil Litigation Process in Ontario
At the mediation session, the parties meet with a neutral mediator who tries to help them resolve the issues in the case. The mediator cannot force the parties to accept a settlement and the mediator does not have the power to impose a decision on the parties. Discussions at the mediation session are confidential, as are any settlement offers that are made during mediation. If the parties do not reach a settlement, offers made by a party cannot be referred to during the rest of the litigation process until after a judgment is reached.

More information at link.
http://www.merovitzpotechin.com/hel...ding-the-civil-litigation-process-in-ontario/

The Criminal Case: Step-by-Step
8. Plea negotiations
The outcome of a trial is never certain. Each case has strengths and weaknesses. The Crown and defence may agree on a charge to which the accused will plead guilty or the sentence that will be recommended to the judge. This process is referred to as plea negotiation. The victim benefits from a plea negotiation because a conviction is assured and the victim is spared the emotional trauma of testifying and being cross-examined by the defence. These are important considerations for the Crown attorney in negotiating with the defence. A plea can be made at any time up to and during the trial. The judge makes the final decision to accept or reject any pleas that has been negotiated.

http://www.gov.mb.ca/justice/prosecutions/stepbystep.html

 

[matou]

Sillybilly, there were reporters at the courthouse covering a story about a lady who brought live rats in the courthouse (!). Clairmont was already there.

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2015/02/23/woman-caught-trying-to-take-rats-into-hamilton-court.html

 

[Tamarind]

Sillybilly, there were reporters at the courthouse covering a story about a lady who brought live rats in the courthouse (!). Clairmont was already there.

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2015/02/23/woman-caught-trying-to-take-rats-into-hamilton-court.html

So how would Hank Bosma have known? Also presumably the hearing was not in the vicinity of the woman with the rats. Maybe the rat story is the convenient catalyst for the leak. JMO

Did someone post a link to how it became known that it was a motion hearing?

 

[matou]

The crown told the family and he came. Jmo

 

[ABro]

So how would Hank Bosma have known? Also presumably the hearing was not in the vicinity of the woman with the rats. Maybe the rat story is the convenient catalyst for the leak. JMO

Did someone post a link to how it became known that it was a motion hearing?

There was no leak. You can't leak public information posted on the courthouse wall

The Crown would inform Hank Bosma and victims services of the proceedings, which were Public until the judge went in camera.

No conspiracy here.

 

[swedie]

Locked Up In America. Warning: graphic video

Maybe every high schools should show this video to students, or parents show it to their children to wake them up to the true reality of what it's like being in prison. Maybe we wouldn't have so many people committing senseless crimes. And change some laws so some criminals get harsher and longer sentences. Especially crimes involved in harming or killing others. MOO.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/locked-up-in-america/#solitary-nation

 

[matou]

Why did the two suspects need to appear in person together in court instead of via video?

 

[Sillybilly]

Why did the two suspects need to appear in person together in court instead of via video?

Matou, that's the part that has me really scratching my head :waitasec:

 

[Tamarind]

There is still Rule 28.05. I seriously doubt it is there in the rules to bulk them up. It obviously has a reason to state that pretrial conferences are in closed rooms. Dismiss it all you like, it is still in the rules. To not follow their own rules would bring the administration of justice into disrepute. JMO

 

[ABro]

There is still Rule 28.05. I seriously doubt it is there in the rules to bulk them up. It obviously has a reason to state that pretrial conferences are in closed rooms. Dismiss it all you like, it is still in the rules. To not follow their own rules would bring the administration of justice into disrepute. JMO

This was not a pre-trial conference. It was something resembling pre-trial motions.

The Spectator and its lawyer are not stupid.

<modsnip>

 

[Tamarind]

This was not a pre-trial conference. It was something resembling pre-trial motions.

The Spectator and its lawyer are not stupid.

<modsnip>

I am not suggesting anyone is stupid but not everyone knows the Superior court rules. No-one except maybe two or three on here seem to know them. The press (Spec) are unlikely to have perused each and every superior court rule before trying to get in to the hearing. JMO

If it is claimed to be something that resembles a pre trial motion then it is clear that the actual type of hearing is unknown, so safe to say it could well be a pre-trial conference of sorts ! It is pre-trial, and it is a conference of sorts that is taking place behind those closed doors. Again JMO

I will also add that I know for a fact that this rule has been breached in a certain court many times and just recently it has been brought to the attention of those that need to know. FWIW

 

[ABro]

I am not suggesting anyone is stupid but not everyone knows the Superior court rules. No-one except maybe two or three on here seem to know them. The press (Spec) are unlikely to have perused each and every superior court rule before trying to get in to the hearing. JMO

If it is claimed to be something that resembles a pre trial motion then it is clear that the actual type of hearing is unknown, so safe to say it could well be a pre-trial conference of sorts ! It is pre-trial, and it is a conference of sorts that is taking place behind those closed doors. Again JMO

I will also add that I know for a fact that this rule has been breached in a certain court many times and just recently it has been brought to the attention of those that need to know. FWIW

A pre-trial conference is not held before the trial judge as happened with these proceedings.

The Spectator's lawyer is a specialist in media law.

The Spectator's court reporter is excellent and her reports make clear what happened.