Court Appearances and Canadian Legal Terms

[ABro]

Is Leitch et al. prohibited from telling TB's father and PL what transpired during these closed-door proceedings?

Yes.

Anyone who says anything risks contempt of court charges.

 

[Tamarind]

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.

A judge can usually make decisions that are not usual IMO, be it a pre-trial judge or a trial judge. Maybe they are severing the case.

 

[swedie]

February 23, 2015

Tim Bosma trial judge to hold pre-trial hearing in-camera

Justice Stephen Glithero ruled on Monday that three days of pretrial motions — which are often subject to a publication ban, but usually conducted in public — will be in-camera, with neither the media or members of the public allowed in the courtroom.

Pretrial motions will continue at 10 a.m. on April 30 and again on May 1.

Millard, Smich and Noudga are all headed straight to trial, skipping a preliminary hearing. The trial for Millard and Smich is expected to begin in September.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamil...to-hold-pre-trial-hearing-in-camera-1.2968659

Bring this post forward, HTH.

 

[Tamarind]

Bring this post forward, HTH.

I have asked a lawyer who tells me that any pre-trial hearing should be in closed courtroom if you are going by the rule 28.05 as the rule is self explanatory. Especially if someone is unrepresented, if not other closed area will be set aside for use by counsel in these cases. We are going to have to agree to differ Swedie, at least for the time being.

 

[Carli]

If I were a wagerin' person, I'd place my bets on the probability that this was a Charter application arising from unreasonable delays in delivering discovery docs to the defense. MOO. I also still haven't ruled out the possibility that DM may be considering representing himself when and if the trial proceeds. MOO.

 

[swedie]

Pretrial Conference

A pretrial conference is a meeting of the parties to a case conducted prior to trial. The conference is held before the trial judge or a magistrate, a judicial officer who possesses fewer judicial powers than a judge. A pretrial conference may be held prior to trial in both civil and criminal cases. A pretrial conference may be requested by a party to a case, or it may be ordered by the court. Generally, the term pretrial conference is used interchangeably with the term pretrial hearing.
A pretrial conference may be conducted for several reasons: (1) expedite disposition of the case, (2) help the court establish managerial control over the case, (3) discourage wasteful pretrial activities, (4) improve the quality of the trial with thorough preparation, and (5) facilitate a settlement of the case.

More information at link.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Pretrial+Conference

Information pertaining to pretrial conference at link; pretrial motion, pretrial hearing.

 

[Carli]

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.

All of which frames some of the reasons why, IMO, there will be no challenge. MOO. IMHO. etc.

 

[ABro]

Information pertaining to pretrial conference at link; pretrial motion, pretrial hearing.

That's a US dictionary, Swedie. Things are very different there.

 

[ABro]

I have asked a lawyer who tells me that any pre-trial hearing should be in closed courtroom if you are going by the rule 28.05 as the rule is self explanatory. Especially if someone is unrepresented, if not other closed area will be set aside for use by counsel in these cases. We are going to have to agree to differ Swedie, at least for the time being.

Once again, you are confusing apples and oranges. You can go to any courthouse and sit in on pre-trail motions held before the trial judge.

The pre-trial conference takes place usually in Chambers and it's before a different judge. That's where rule 28.05 applies -- not to pre-trial motions.

If the cases are to be severed, there is no reason for it to be done in secret.

 

[ABro]

If I were a wagerin' person, I'd place my bets on the probability that this was a Charter application arising from unreasonable delays in delivering discovery docs to the defense. MOO. I also still haven't ruled out the possibility that DM may be considering representing himself when and if the trial proceeds. MOO.

There have not been any delays in delivering docs to the defence. It's never been raised as an issue.

If anything, Millard's failure to retain a lawyer has caused delays.

No Charter issues here.

 

[Tamarind]

If I were a wagerin' person, I'd place my bets on the probability that this was a Charter application arising from unreasonable delays in delivering discovery docs to the defense. MOO. I also still haven't ruled out the possibility that DM may be considering representing himself when and if the trial proceeds. MOO.

Would need to check the Morin case to see if delay is withing the Morin guidelines for delay. R v Morin

Based on who/what is responsible for the delay ie./ Crown, Defense, Institutional or Inherent

 

[Tamarind]

There have not been any delays in delivering docs to the defence. It's never been raised as an issue.

If anything, Millard's failure to retain a lawyer has caused delays.

No Charter issues here.

No, someones lack of counsel is not a delay by accused. We have the right to not retain counsel. DM has sufficient money to retain counsel, him not securing counsel is for some other reason that we are not aware of. IMO

 

[Tamarind]

Once again, you are confusing apples and oranges. You can go to any courthouse and sit in on pre-trail motions held before the trial judge.

The pre-trial conference takes place usually in Chambers and it's before a different judge. That's where rule 28.05 applies -- not to pre-trial motions.

If the cases are to be severed, there is no reason for it to be done in secret.

Actually you cant sit in on anything you choose. Conferences in chambers are for counsel not unrepresented. It says that in 28.05 also. As I have said, judges can make decisions for basically anything in THEIR court. I am not going to keep arguing this with you no matter how many 'once agains' you throw at me. I don't care what you want me to believe I have my own opinion HTH

 

[Carli]

There have not been any delays in delivering docs to the defence. It's never been raised as an issue.

If anything, Millard's failure to retain a lawyer has caused delays.

No Charter issues here.

Well, unless our beautiful west coast weather is wrecking havoc with my brain I distinctly recall numerous references to such delays. Life is so short. Must I truly go weeding back through all those dreadfully written MSM reports to find the quotes. Will if I must, but not will-ingly. MOO. IMHO. etc.

 

[Tamarind]

Once again, you are confusing apples and oranges. You can go to any courthouse and sit in on pre-trail motions held before the trial judge.

The pre-trial conference takes place usually in Chambers and it's before a different judge. That's where rule 28.05 applies -- not to pre-trial motions.

If the cases are to be severed, there is no reason for it to be done in secret.

Actually you cant sit in on anything you choose. Conferences in chambers are for counsel not unrepresented. It says that in 28.05 also. As I have said, judges can make decisions for basically anything in THEIR court. I am not going to keep arguing this with you no matter how many 'once agains' you throw at me. I don't care what you want me to believe I have my own opinion HTH

 

[ABro]

Actually you cant sit in on anything you choose. Conferences in chambers are for counsel not unrepresented. It says that in 28.05 also. As I have said, judges can make decisions for basically anything in THEIR court. I am not going to keep arguing this with you no matter how many 'once agains' you throw at me. I don't care what you want me to believe I have my own opinion HTH

You're welcome to your own opinion, but not your own facts.

So once again, 28.05 applies to pre trial conferences. These are not held with the trial judge and are not open to the public. In the MIllard case, they were held with Justice Turnbull last year. It's when the original trial dates were set.

What happened in court last month had nothing to do with 28.05 no matter how much you keep repeating it and how dearly held your opinion may be. The proceeding was in front of the trial judge, Stephen Glithero, and noted on the dockets as a "to be spoken to" session. It was described by the Spec as possibly pre-trial motions, which are open to the public. That's why reporters were there and Hank Bosma and a family friend.

Anthony Leitch knows the rules. He didn't tell Tim's father to come to a closed session.

And no, judges can't do anything in their own courts without consequence, which is why this judge told the Spec reporter she might want to call her lawyer.

Judges do no want their rulings appealed and overturned and they don't like to be the subject of front page editorials in the national press lambasting them for their lack of transparency.

 

[Tamarind]

You're welcome to your own opinion, but not your own facts.

So once again, 28.05 applies to pre trial conferences. These are not held with the trial judge and are not open to the public. In the MIllard case, they were held with Justice Turnbull last year. It's when the original trial dates were set.

What happened in court last month had nothing to do with 28.05 no matter how much you keep repeating it and how dearly held your opinion may be. The proceeding was in front of the trial judge, Stephen Glithero, and noted on the dockets as a "to be spoken to" session. It was described by the Spec as possibly pre-trial motions, which are open to the public. That's why reporters were there and Hank Bosma and a family friend.

Anthony Leitch knows the rules. He didn't tell Tim's father to come to a closed session.

And no, judges can't do anything in their own courts without consequence, which is why this judge told the Spec reporter she might want to call her lawyer.

Judges do no want their rulings appealed and overturned and they don't like to be the subject of front page editorials in the national press lambasting them for their lack of transparency.

Do not agree. Kindly stop ramming your view at me. Thank you

 

[ABro]

View attachment 70994

Example of an unhappy judge.

 

[swedie]

No, someones lack of counsel is not a delay by accused. We have the right to not retain counsel. DM has sufficient money to retain counsel, him not securing counsel is for some other reason that we are not aware of. IMO

BBM - Are you certain of this?
Ravin Pillay is also representing DM and he also works for legal aid.
MOO.

 

[swedie]

You're welcome to your own opinion, but not your own facts.

So once again, 28.05 applies to pre trial conferences. These are not held with the trial judge and are not open to the public. In the MIllard case, they were held with Justice Turnbull last year. It's when the original trial dates were set.

What happened in court last month had nothing to do with 28.05 no matter how much you keep repeating it and how dearly held your opinion may be. The proceeding was in front of the trial judge, Stephen Glithero, and noted on the dockets as a "to be spoken to" session. It was described by the Spec as possibly pre-trial motions, which are open to the public. That's why reporters were there and Hank Bosma and a family friend.

Anthony Leitch knows the rules. He didn't tell Tim's father to come to a closed session.

And no, judges can't do anything in their own courts without consequence, which is why this judge told the Spec reporter she might want to call her lawyer.

Judges do no want their rulings appealed and overturned and they don't like to be the subject of front page editorials in the national press lambasting them for their lack of transparency.

Thank you kindly for clarifying ABro, much appreciated. :tyou: