tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32931256.post6313636192469002814..comments2024-03-22T05:20:44.167-07:00Comments on The Disaffected Lib: There's a Book In This.The Mound of Soundhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09023839743772372922noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32931256.post-23886936444016785122017-08-26T19:16:51.372-07:002017-08-26T19:16:51.372-07:00I appreciate you keeping your views to yourself, b...I appreciate you keeping your views to yourself, but I don't know anyone connected to this and am free to kibitz.<br /><br />I wonder if the PMO crew could be nailed for civil fraud. In the leading case of <i>Bruno Appliance</i>, the SCC outlined the four elements needed:<br />1) a false representation made by the defendant;<br />2) some level of knowledge of the falsehood of the representation on the part of the defendant (knowledge or recklessness);<br />3) the false representation caused the plaintiff to act; and <br />4) the plaintiff’s actions resulted in a loss.<br /><br />If I recall correctly, 1) the PMO promised Duffy that the Senate would drop the investigation into his expenses, or go easy, if he ponied up the cash; 2) the PMO had to have known that it could not guarantee such an outcome in an independent Senate; 3) Duffy only considered paying once he had the PMO's assurance; and 4) the PMO's actions resulted in his suspension from the Senate and loss of pay. <br /><br />In effect, Wright's $90,000 bank draft was a trap. Duffy planned to fight the Senate committee over his expense claims. This would have exposed all the travel he did for the Party and led to discussion of the legitimacy of his appointment as senator from PEI. It would have dragged on and been highly embarrassing to Brave Sir Stephen. By giving Duffy the money he needed to write a cheque to the Senate in his own name, Wright's provided the means for Duffy to take another course: falsely confess that he'd done wrong and then make it right. This approach had worked for other Senators whose expenses had been questioned, but in Duffy's case it backfired. As Bayne said in his opening statement and showed at trial, the whole thing was "a fiction, a fraud, a lie conceived for political damage-control purposes." Seems to me that someone ought to pay a price for that.<br /><br />Cap<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32931256.post-86195028304334802862017-08-26T18:05:15.998-07:002017-08-26T18:05:15.998-07:00You raise good points, Cap, and you won't be s...<br />You raise good points, Cap, and you won't be surprised that they're also points of disagreement within Duffy's legal camp. Some of the stalwarts believe that Harper and Wright should have been made principal defendants in the suit. Of course it is possible that the writ could be amended to add them later although that can create its own problems.<br /><br />As a contemporary of Mr. Greenspon and a long-term friend of another involved in this I'll keep the remainder of my views to myself - where they belong.The Mound of Soundhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09023839743772372922noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32931256.post-91729162480392524442017-08-26T16:45:43.330-07:002017-08-26T16:45:43.330-07:00Mound, you're quite right that Vaillancourt J....Mound, you're quite right that Vaillancourt J. pointed the finger at the PMO and Nigel Wright in dismissing all 31 criminal charges against Duffy. So I find it interesting that Duffy isn't suing Harper, Wright or any of the other PMO conspirators who made his life hell and caused the Con senators to act the way they did. Justice Vaillancourt certainly saw a plot and commented that "the plotting that's revealed in the emails can only be described as unacceptable."<br /><br />I would have been tempted to sue Harper and Wright too, just to get them under oath at discoveries. But I guess Greenspon decided that the civil case against them wasn't strong enough since, in theory at least, the Senate and RCMP reach their decisions independently.<br /><br />In the end, I suspect Duffy will come away empty handed. Negligent investigation is a relatively novel tort and the case against the RCMP will be tough to prove. As for the Senate, I can't see a trial judge being keen on judicial review of internal Senate disciplinary policy and the court will likely look for a way to dismiss that action on jurisdictional grounds. But with any luck, Duffy's matter will come to trial in time for the next election, although even that may be a bit ambitious.<br /><br />CapAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32931256.post-61689952084808278612017-08-26T15:27:12.831-07:002017-08-26T15:27:12.831-07:00Funny how an old , fat, sick man beat Harper and ...Funny how an old , fat, sick man beat Harper and will continue to humiliate him in this lawsuit. rumleyfipshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03346146988416679423noreply@blogger.com