Yet another case of guilty until proven innocent—not the Canadian way
To the Expositor:
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Section 11(d), provision 11 (presumption of innocence) states: Any person charged with an offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal.
These days, that presumption is being tested. Several years ago, a complaint was filed against me (as a member of a working committee of a local council) that I had somehow besmirched another member of the community by writing a letter to the editor of this newspaper, correcting some statements of fact in a letter that was also published by The Expositor, written by another member of the committee. I was, in effect, kept in limbo during the period of the investigation by an independent agent of the Integrity Commissioner. I could easily have been found guilty in the minds of some because such an action was taking place – the principle of no smoke without fire, I suppose.
In another time and place, I have been the subject of a $1 million SLAPP action brought by a land developer. (SLAPP is a convenient term – Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation – where someone – typically a land developer with deep pockets and phalanxes of corporate lawyers – initiates a legal action to tie in knots or frighten off anyone who has any objections to whatever the land developer wants to do to his land, or indeed a municipality’s Official Plan.) In that case, having gulped a couple of times and consulted with my wife, instead of melting into a puddle on the floor from anxiety, I contacted and engaged one of the best libel lawyers in Ontario, who (after referring to the accusation as “just about the most frivolous and vexation case I have seen”) immediately obtained signed affidavits from several prominent community members who could confirm what I had written and we prepared to go to court. In fact, it never did because the other party’s lawyers advised him that he was very likely to lose, and he did retract only asking that I publish an innocuous statement that helped him save face.
So, why all this preamble? Because I recently found out that our very efficient Ontario MPP Michael Mantha has been “removed” from the Ontario NDP party while an investigation of accusations against him takes place. Note: accusations, not verdict of being guilty. Michael may well be guilty of something, I have no idea (I’m not sure he does either). But to me this is a case of guilty until proven innocent which, going back to my opening sentence, isn’t the way we do things here in Canada. I will be watching how this unfolds (which has already been way too long in my opinion). Meanwhile, Michael Mantha continues as our MPP—as our independent MPP—with the same great service.
Paul Darlaston
Kagawong
