Schmidt to appeal motion ruling

To put [the judge’s ruling in the post below] into context, the following is a brief synopsis.

Michael Schmidt talks to reporters after a motion hearing July 31, 2008

Michael Schmidt answers questions from reporters after a motion hearing in Newmarket, on July 31.

We filed the motion.

The Crown filed a reply.

Upon commencement of the motion hearing, the JP clearly stated that he had read all the material and did not need any further information or discussion, unless either party had something further to add. In other words, he had his decision prepared in advance of the hearing. We indicated that we did have further information to add, because we had a reply to the Crown’s filing.

After Michael rendered his oral reply to the Crown’s reply, we provided to the Court and the Crown, in one binding, the text of our oral submissions. This provided the court with an opportunity to see our grounds for the motion in proper context.

The court recessed for 10 minutes.

Upon returning from recess, the JP read his decision and provided us with a copy of that text [in the post below].

The lack of desire to have the matter debated in court, the lack of substantive counter evidence by the Crown, the fact that the decision was drafted even before the start of the motion hearing, and the grounds, or lack there of, in the court’s decision only acted as further confirmation of our position. We are all the more resolute in seeking a just rendering on the motion and are appealing the decision with full confidence.

– George

Leave a comment

Filed under News

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s