Maybe I am in the minority, or perhaps naive, but I have serious issues with the charges of sexism being leveled against Justice Cunningham. I mentioned these before. I cannot believe that in 2009 we have sexist judges sitting on the bench. This could be my naive part.
I also have doubts about the impartiality of the media in the reporting of this "scandal/issue/etc". So I decided to find the judgment and read it for myself. I pasted it here for you enjoyment. Some commentary at the bottom.
[61] The next witness relied upon by the Crown for corroboration was Lisa MacLeod, the MPP for Nepean-Carleton. When she learned in July 2006 that Mr. O'Brien was considering running for Mayor, she arranged a meeting with him. They met July 31st at her constituency office where Mr. O'Brien was accompanied by Mr. David Gibbons. Ms. MacLeod was pleased there might be a Conservative in the mayoralty race and offered Mr. O’Brien some advice regarding the names of potential campaign workers. During the course of their conversation Ms. MacLeod, stated that, in the context of what Mr. Kilrea might do if he were not a candidate, Mr. O'Brien said, "somebody was talking to Terry about an appointment." It wasn't clear who that was.
[62] After telling the Crown she was at the time more interested in the campaign and its people and how excited she was about the people Mr. O'Brien would draw into his campaign, the Crown asked, "Uh-hum, And this discussion with respect to a Parole Board appointment..." At that point, quite properly, the defence objected. After some discussion Ms. MacLeod said, "I believe it was the National Parole Board. Again, it came up casually, 1think once or twice... but we focused generally on (who) would be suitable campaign managers for a Conservative candidate for mayor..." After another question, she responded, "My best recollection is we're talking to Terry about an appointment" which she believed was to the National Parole Board."
[63] During cross-examination, the defence was able to demonstrate that there were a number of rather significant things going on in her life when she gave "her statement to the police in early May 2007. She was commuting regularly to Toronto for her work, leaving her husband and child in Ottawa. As well, in March 2007, her father was diagnosed with cancer. Defence counsel put her statement to her during cross-examination and without reciting her evidence in detail, I conclude that any references to Mr. Kilrea being in line for an appointment were casual, beyond the real subject matter of their conversation and really quite peripheral to the matters at hand. She agreed there was "a considerable rumour mill out there" and at one point told the police officer that "90% of it is rumour" and that her job was to try and figure out what is fact and what is fiction. Initially, during examination-in-chief she testified that Mr. O’Brien said, "somebody was talking to Terry about an appointment". That morphed into “we're talking to Terry about an appointment", following which the Crown introduced the subject of the National Parole Board. She agreed with defence counsel that since May 2007 she had offered several alternatives as to what might have been said by Mr. O'Brien. When asked, "... can you say definitely, just for example, when I say the term "we're", can you say definitely the words that fell from his lips weren't something like "we were", she responded, "Well, in the context of his campaign, I, I, didn't ask him. So I really couldn’t speculate." Later, she was asked, “You didn't know whether in fact it was Mr. Kilrea who initiated discussions about an appointment" to which she responded, "No." And later, "And you didn’t know whether this was an appointment that Mr. Kilrea was working on himself?", to which she responded, "Correct." And then, "...and you didn’t know whether this was a discussion that had taken place in the past. Correct?", to which she responded, "Yes."
[64] Taken as a whole, I cannot conclude that Ms. MacLeod's evidence is corroborative of Mr. Kilrea’s assertion that the "offer" was still outstanding in late July 2006. Ms. MacLeod's recollection of a brief; casual portion of her conversation is so imprecise that, through no fault of her own, I must assign it little weight. The various alternatives as to what might have been said by Mr. O'Brien give me real pause such that I cannot determine with any degree of certainty what was said and whether what was said related to something in the past or something that was ongoing. Nor can I conclude it was said in the context of someone looking after Mr. Kilrea or Mr. Kilrea pursuing an appointment on his own. It could just as easily have been a reference to Mr. Kilrea pursuing an appointment through Mr. Baird, something Mr. O'Brien has testified he encouraged Mr. Kilrea to do.
I bolded what I thought was the most interesting piece. I thing the Justice's talk of commuting, cancer etc were to mitigate any potential embarrassment on Lisa McLeods part for her "imprecise" testimony. She wasn't able to provide any details on her conversations, and the defence turned her testimony on its head. She herself admitted that she presented several alternatives to what was said.
Perhaps she would have been happier if the Justice said she wasn't a believable witness instead of just a distracted participant?
3 comments:
Thanks for posting the whole thing. Seeing the statement in context and understanding the background is most helpful.
You're welcome! Does it change anything in your opinion?
I still wonder whether, in the same context, the judge would have made a similar reference to things going on in a man's life. After all, her vagueness should have been sufficient evidence, without reference to the multitasking which is a part of every person's life. The implication was very much that Ms MacLeod was distracted by the events in her life in her life in a way a man would not have been.
Post a Comment