English:

http://www.parl.gc.ca/36/1/parlbus/chambus/senate/deb-e/050db_1998-03-26 -E.asp?Language=E&Parl=36&Ses=1 French:

http://www.parl.gc.ca/36/1/parlbus/chambus/senate/deb-e/050db_1998-03-26 -E.asp?Language=F&Parl=36&Ses=1 Debates of the Senate (Hansard) 1st Session, 36th Parliament,
Volume 137, Issue 50
Thursday, March 26, 1998

Criminal Code
Bill to Amend-Second Reading-Debate Adjourned
Hon. Anne C. Cools moved the second reading of Bill S-12, to amend the
Criminal Code (abuse of process).

<long snip>

Honourable senators, Bill S-12 has its origins in the Hill v. Church of Scientology case, which lasted eleven years and cost countless millions of dollars. In September 1984, Scientology and its lawyers instituted contempt of court proceedings seeking to imprison Casey Hill, the Crown prosecutor associated with investigating the Church of Scientology.

Casey Hill is now Mr. Justice Casey Hill.

In November 1984, Mr. Justice Cromarty ruled that Scientology's allegations against Casey Hill were untrue and unfounded. This terrible case is known for the inordinate financial cost, the longevity, and the mean-spiritedness of Scientology through its several lawyers and their unstoppable campaign to destroy Casey Hill. Their persistent, reckless and unconscionable repetition of vicious and untrue accusations against Casey Hill, despite the judicial determination to the contrary, were shocking.

Mr. Justices Griffiths, Catzman, and Galligan in their 1994 Ontario Court of Appeal decision revealed Scientology and its lawyers contumacious actions. They said regarding the Church of Scientology:

It continued with unfounded contempt proceedings against Casey Hill when it knew, no later than September 27, 1984, that its principal allegation was untrue. It hid its knowledge of the falsity of that allegation from the court, from Casey Hill and from counsel whom it had retained to prosecute the contempt charges.

(1550) That counsel is Mr. Manning. The justices continued:

Counsel for Scientology suggest that the unfounded charges of contempt of court against Casey Hill were laid as a result of the advice, albeit misguided, of Scientology's solicitors, and that therefore those charges could not constitute evidence of specific malice on the part of Scientology against Casey Hill.

Finally, the 1995 Supreme Court of Canada judgment upheld the Ontario Court of Appeal decision in Casey Hill's favour and awarded him the largest damages award in the libel history of Canada.

About a nasty, threatening letter written by Scientology's counsel, Mr.

Clayton Ruby, to Casey Hill, Mr. Justice Peter Cory said:

It should be noted that at the time this letter was written, Clayton Ruby was a Bencher of the Law Society and Vice-Chairman of the Law Society's Discipline Committee.

The letter implied that there could be disciplinary proceedings brought before the Law Society of Upper Canada and that a contempt action might be instituted.

Honourable senators, Bill S-12 is a legislative response to a modern pathology. This psychopathy in the body politic of our courts needs our political and parliamentary study and action. While I do sincerely believe that lawyers and lawyers privileges must be upheld, that lawyers privileges must be maintained, and that the majority of lawyers are honest professionals, the minority who are abusing the process, namely, the deviants, need sanctions.

I urge honourable senators to pass Bill S-12.

On motion of Senator DeWare, for Senator Kinsella, debate adjourned.

<more long snip>

My Bill S-12 was inspired by the questionable behaviour of certain barristers and the Law Society's hesitation to confront the problem.

Bill S-12 is a response to the Supreme Court of Canada's judgement in Casey Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto. Troubled by this case and Reverend Baxter's case, I studied the matter carefully, and, with this country's finest legislative drafter, developed my bill. I have spoken on these matters often in this chamber, including July 13, 1995 on the Ontario Civil Justice Review Report and the Reverend Baxter case, and on November 23, 1995 on the Hill v. Scientology decision, and on March 26, 1996, and October 28, 1996 on Bill S-4 itself. The fundamental issues in Bill S-12 are the conduct of court proceedings and the bending of practice by certain barristers. The larger issues are, first, lawyers' ethics, professional conduct, and the duty owed by lawyers as Officers of the Court to integrity, truth, and justice itself; and second, the duty owed by Parliament to the courts and judges to defend them from falsehood, deceit, prevarication, and subornation in court proceedings. Parliament must uphold the principle which underpins the administration of justice, that is, truth itself. Parliament must assert that the contrivance of deceit and fraud upon the courts is no part of the duty of any solicitor-barrister, and further, that lawyers owe a duty of truth and integrity to the courts. I refer senators to a timely 1997 article by lawyer Marvin Huberman in the Canadian Bar Review, Volume 76, entitled "Integrity Testing for Lawyers: Is It Time?" He wrote:
Ouch! That's pretty strong for parlementary language! I was looking through the Government of Canada search engine, and it's amazing how many cases include Casey Hill v. Church of Scientology as a relevant case. Co$ really made Canadian legal history!

Search engine URL from Hell (Scientology preselected) http://search-recherche.gc.ca/cgi-bin/query?mss=canada%2Fen%2Fsimple&pg= q&enc=iso88591&site=main&bridge=&lowercaseq=&what=web&user=searchintrane t&kl=en&op=a&q=Scientology Ron of that ilk.

http://www.parl.gc.ca/36/2/parlbus/chambus/senate/deb-e/29db_2000-02-17-E.asp?Language=E&Parl=36&Ses=2 Ron of that ilk.

At issue was a provision of the Alberta Judicature Act which limited the publication of information relating to matrimonial cases. In his dissent, Justice La Forest concluded that, although freedom of expression and the need for open courts are important interests, the general publication of details of private family cases serves insufficient public interest and the limitation should stand. Most interestingly, in this case, it was recognized that the privacy of individuals is not only threatened by the interference of government but also by other powerful entities, such as the media, against which an individual is powerless.

More recently, the Court has extended the notion of privacy into that of reputation, perhaps opening the door to successful claims in damages for invasion of privacy. In Morris Manning and Church of Scientology of Toronto14, Mr. Justice Cory stated:

"..... reputation is intimately related to the right to privacy which has been accorded constitutional protection. As La Forest J. wrote in R.

v. Dyment,'privacy, including informational privacy, is [g]rounded in man's physical and moral autonomy and is essential for the well-being of the individual'. The publication of defamatory comments constitutes an invasion of the individual's personal privacy and is an affront to that person's dignity.The protection of a person's reputation is indeed worthy of protection in our democratic society ..."

Yup, Co$ breaks new legal ground in Canada! Bwahaha!

Ron of that ilk.

Go Back