WILL COMMISSIONER INVESTIGATE PREMIER KING? CLICK FOR THE ANSWER
Not a lot has to be said about Commissioner Doiron’s letter: The Act gave her the “discretion” to either investigate or not investigate, and her carefully-crafted letter full of legalese attempts to provide a justification for her decision.
You can decide for yourself – it’s a well-written letter she took a month to ponder and draft – but to me the bias is a clear as the nose on your face, based on just one observation.
Ms. Doiron relies on the preferential value of “direct” evidence (Premier King’s Affidavit denying the allegation that he conspired to keep government business out of government records, and far from the eyes of Paul Maines and me) over what she dubs as “hearsay”. Can’t argue with that I suppose; however, what she fails to point out is that an ACTUAL EMAIL from firstname.lastname@example.org was sent, and filed as an attachment in the PEI Supreme Court.
Technically, on a purely theoretical level, the justice system gives more weight to direct evidence in sworn affidavits than hearsay evidence; however, what can get even MORE weight is DOCUMENTARY evidence].
It is worth recalling what Judge Lipton said in his ruling putting the Premier’s Chief of Staff in jail for destroying records, in the matter of R. v. Livingston, (2018 ONCJ 25):
“The Crown has presented a circumstantial case against the defendants and urges the court to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Livingston and Ms. Miller had the required intent to destroy data without authorization or colour of right. There is no direct evidence that they had such an intent. Since the Crown’s case depends on circumstantial evidence, the court must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the only reasonable
inference that can be drawn from the circumstantial evidence is that the defendants are guilty.”
The direct testimony of witnesses may differ or give rise to conflicting and even contradictory claims, making it impossible to know for certain which person’s testimony is accurate and to be believed.
On the other hand, logical inferences drawn from accepted and indisputable facts contained in documents can produce certain conclusions. Again, as judge Lipson explained in his in R. v. Livingston ruling:
“In a trial such as this, circumstantial evidence can come from not only the testimony of witnesses but also documents, including e-mails, filed as exhibits. From the circumstantial evidence, the
court is asked to draw an inference proving a fact in issue. An inference must not be a mere guess or suspicion, however shrewd that guess may be. An inference is much stronger than conjecture
or speculation. If there are no proven facts from which an inference can logically be drawn, it is impossible to draw an inference. Both direct and circumstantial evidence are admissible as a means of proof. Sometimes circumstantial evidence is more persuasive than direct evidence. The evidence of one witness may contradict that of another, but the circumstances of an event may not be in dispute”
I am not surprised with the Commissioner’s decision: there’s mounting evidence piling up with my work that – unlike her predecessor, Karen Rose – Ms. Doiron is making decisions that reveal a bias protecting the government in their conspiracy to keep information from me and Paul Maines on gaming.
That’s an opinionI believe you’ll come to share, after you read a soon-to-be-written article on another active review I have with the Commissioner. In the meantime, here’s the letter she sent with her full reasoning for letting the Premier off-the-hook: