Mike Duffy sues Ottawa for unfair treatment in Senate scandal

31 posts / 0 new
Last post
Debater
Mike Duffy sues Ottawa for unfair treatment in Senate scandal

The Globe and Mail

Thursday, Aug. 24, 2017

Senator Mike Duffy is suing the federal government for nearly $8-million, saying the Senate and the RCMP unjustly made him a scapegoat in the politically damaging Senate spending scandal.

Mr. Duffy argues in his statement of claim that he was punished in the court of public opinion during the four-year ordeal, and continues to suffer physical, emotional and financial hardship. He said his acquittal on 31 criminal charges at trial last year showed that fellow members of the Senate and the national police force treated him unfairly.

Mr. Duffy alleges the Senate and a majority of senators “acted unconstitutionally” when he was suspended without pay in 2013, and that the RCMP singled him out in its investigation because he was a “more high-profile target” than Nigel Wright, a former Conservative official who gave him $90,000 to repay expense claims that had become controversial.

Mr. Duffy’s lawyer, Lawrence Greenspon, announced the suit, which was filed in Ontario Superior Court, at a news conference in Ottawa on Thursday afternoon.

 

Full article:

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/duffy-lawyer-prepares-anno...

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

He's a Conservative. He probably believes poor people are leeches sucking on the government teet.

Meanwhile,he's a corrupt asshole.

$7.8 million?

What a disgusting porcine leech.

Best of luck,you pig.

progressive17 progressive17's picture

Perhaps we could get beyond calling people names because of their personal appearance. Even if they are men, body-shaming is no good. As to corruption, all 30-odd charges against Duffy were dropped by a court of law. Like any other Canadian he has the right to sue, especially if the Conservative-dominated senate are acting badly towards him. Furthermore, he is no longer a Conservative. He is sitting with the "Independent" senators. Why kick someone when he is down?

You owe yourself better than this.

voice of the damned

The Duffy Affair reminded me of those tawdry, petty Mulroney era "scandals": bad, but almost certainly overblown by the media in terms of their long-term or structural significance. Even the people involved(Duffy, Pamela Wallin in her own separate but concurrent fiasco) seemed like leftovers from the Mulroney days. 

All that was missing was Sheila Copps and John Nunziata hollering at the top of their lungs. 

(And yes, I realize that Duffy was acquitted, but even if he had been found guilty, I don't think it would have been viewed as particularly newsworthy had he not been a celebrity before entering the Senate.) 

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Joe Warmington, the worlds youngest "Grumpy old white conservative man" is already suggesting that if the government could give Omar Khadr money, they can give Duffy money too.  Because at least Duffy is a "patriotic Canadian Senator".

Can we at least waterboard him a bit first?  So it's even slightly similar??

That said, it's his right to seek redress, and a court's right to either grant it or not.  But I think the fact that Duffy was criminally acquitted has far more to do with the high bar set by a criminal court, and not his squeaky-cleanness.  I personally think the government needs to compensate Duffy exactly the same as the CBC needs to re-hire Jian Ghomeshi and pay him back wages with interest.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

progressive17 wrote:

Perhaps we could get beyond calling people names because of their personal appearance. Even if they are men, body-shaming is no good. As to corruption, all 30-odd charges against Duffy were dropped by a court of law. Like any other Canadian he has the right to sue, especially if the Conservative-dominated senate are acting badly towards him. Furthermore, he is no longer a Conservative. He is sitting with the "Independent" senators. Why kick someone when he is down?

You owe yourself better than this.

Oh boo-hoo...Poor Mike Duffy,my heart bleeds and I cry a river.

By the way,I'm not fat shaming anyone. He looks like a pig ,seriously he does,and this lawsuit proves he's a pig --- at the trough.

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
By the way,I'm not fat shaming anyone. He looks like a pig

Isn't that pretty much exactly what fat shaming is??

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
By the way,I'm not fat shaming anyone. He looks like a pig

Isn't that pretty much exactly what fat shaming is??

No it's not. Did I refer to him as a 'fat pig'? That would be fat shaming. I'm simply pointing out that the man looks like a pig. Sorry. He does. Prove me wrong if you disagree.

Anyway,I don't want to derail the thread.

He defrauded the government with his housing allowance so he's corrupt.

He's a sitting Senator who just changed his title from Conservative to Independent. He didn't miss a meal. He's been getting paid as a Senator all through this time.

The fact that he's trying to sue the government (Senate and RCMP AKA government) for $7.8 million makes him a pig at the trough. Trying to milk tax payers out of more money than he already has.

I hold absolutely no quarter for this man. I don't know why anyone here would.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Anyway,I don't want to derail the thread.

Then stop re-editing it.  It's popped to the top three times now.  Do you feel you've had your say?

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Mr. Magoo wrote:

[  Do you feel you've had your say?

It wouldn't have popped up three times if I didn''t have to explain and defend what I said.

To answer your question,yes I did , thank you.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
It wouldn't have popped up three times if I didn''t have to explain and defend what I said.

Nor if you'd explained and defended it the first time.  You suggested (I guess) that he was a SKINNY pig.  Let's leave it at that.

But really, Alan, never feel like you "have to".

progressive17 progressive17's picture

Busted.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
It wouldn't have popped up three times if I didn''t have to explain and defend what I said.

Nor if you'd explained and defended it the first time.  You suggested (I guess) that he was a SKINNY pig.  Let's leave it at that.

But really, Alan, never feel like you "have to".

The man looks like a pig...skinny fat or otherwise..It's an obvious observation. This fat shaming shit is in your mind. And it's really sad that I moved on to stop the thread drift and you cant let go something I said that is as obvious as the nose on your face.

What next? If I point out that Trump's hair looks like a meerkat or a tribble I'm going to somehow be hair shaming? mongoose shaming? fictional Star Trek animal shaming?

We all call Trump an orange (fill in the blank)  are we shaming the state of Florida? It's called an observation and an obvious one at that.

Sorry you can't take the truth. It hurts,I know. But I don't lie. I'm honest.

And by the way,don't patrionize me,mmkay?

And to 'Progressive'..Your reply was typical of a weasel in the comment section of Youtube. Have the fortitude to address me personally and not piggy backing on someone else's comment. Your comment was something a 15 year old would do. Oh wait,I shouldn't have said weasel because now I'll be blasted for rodent shaming.

I don't take kindly on people who accuse me of something,especially when I explicitly explain and debunk the accusation.

Now,continue your love fest for poor Mike Duffy. Maybe you'll throw in Wallin too and cry into your beer about how unfair it is that people look down at them. Which they should.Not to mention how their 'outstanding reputations' have been forever damaged...Boo fuckin' hoo..They are both corrupt,entitled fraud artists who deserve everything they got.

$7.8 million. You really believes he deserves that? If so,you're pretty sad. (I say with respect)

And if you feel the need that you have to whine and falsely accuse me of something I blatantly didn't do,you too don't 'have to'  OK?

So knock off the false accusations. Stop micro managing speech. Ans stop the false accusations.

Sineed

As a civil servant x 20 years, I'm disgusted by Duffy's suit. Let's recall what he did: he took a living allowance for having a primary residence in PEI even though he'd really lived in Ottawa for years, and he allowed a conservative bagman to cover almost a hundred grand of disputed expenses that he refused to pay. The fact that he was found not guilty doesn't mean he didn't do anything wrong. It just meant that he didn't break the law, a low bar, considering Duffy and the others were able to claim millions in expenses before a red flag was raised. And to be fair, Harper's calling in the RCMP to deal with people who had become political liabilities was a gross misuse of our national police force.

 

Rev Pesky

The real 'lawbreaker' was Stephen Harper. He wanted Duffy in the Senate, and he wanted to name him as Senator from PEI, so he did. As soon as he did that, it allowed Duffy to claim for living expenses.

In fact, if Dufy had not claimed for living expenses, that could have been taken as proof that he was not, in fact, a Senator from PEI.

The whole blow-up over Duffy's position came about because of Stephen Harper. He did the same thing with Pamela Wallin, a case which was arguably more egregious. According to Wikipedia:

Wallin's travel expense claims came under investigation in November 2012 because she had an "unusual travel pattern". When travelling between her declared primary residence in Saskatchewan and Ottawa, Wallin often stopped over in Toronto, and was claiming the Toronto leg as part of her expenses. A senator may claim travel expenses only if parliamentary business is being conducted at the travel destination.

Preliminary findings indicated "a pattern of claiming Senate expenses on personal or other business unrelated to the Senate, including boards she sits on." Wallin earned approximately $1 million in stock options and fees while on corporate boards since her appointment as senator. A Postmedia News analysis indicated Wallin was ranked second highest in overall spending at $369,593 behind recently retired Conservative Senator Gerry St. Germain, who spent $378,292 during the same period.

Deloitte determined that travel claims totaling $390,182 were appropriate under Senate practice, $121,348 were not appropriate and should be reimbursed, and $20,978 were questionable and subject to interpretation by the Senate Steering Committee.

Although Wallin did not meet two of the four "indicators" of primary residence (provincial health card and tax return), and had not provided sufficient information as to voting location, Deloitte concluded that her primary residence, as declared, was in Saskatchewan. This was based on travel pattern, no privately owned property in Ottawa for a significant period of time, and time in Ottawa being almost exclusively for Senate business.

Ultimately some of that money was repaid, but she was never charged. In any case, the situation developed because of Stephen Harper, and it is sort of fitting that someone in his office ended up paying for some of it.

progressive17 progressive17's picture

alan smithee wrote:

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
It wouldn't have popped up three times if I didn''t have to explain and defend what I said.

Nor if you'd explained and defended it the first time.  You suggested (I guess) that he was a SKINNY pig.  Let's leave it at that.

But really, Alan, never feel like you "have to".

The man looks like a pig...skinny fat or otherwise..It's an obvious observation. This fat shaming shit is in your mind. And it's really sad that I moved on to stop the thread drift and you cant let go something I said that is as obvious as the nose on your face.

What next? If I point out that Trump's hair looks like a meerkat or a tribble I'm going to somehow be hair shaming? mongoose shaming? fictional Star Trek animal shaming?

We all call Trump an orange (fill in the blank)  are we shaming the state of Florida? It's called an observation and an obvious one at that.

Sorry you can't take the truth. It hurts,I know. But I don't lie. I'm honest.

And by the way,don't patrionize me,mmkay?

And to 'Progressive'..Your reply was typical of a weasel in the comment section of Youtube. Have the fortitude to address me personally and not piggy backing on someone else's comment. Your comment was something a 15 year old would do. Oh wait,I shouldn't have said weasel because now I'll be blasted for rodent shaming.

I don't take kindly on people who accuse me of something,especially when I explicitly explain and debunk the accusation.

Now,continue your love fest for poor Mike Duffy. Maybe you'll throw in Wallin too and cry into your beer about how unfair it is that people look down at them. Which they should.Not to mention how their 'outstanding reputations' have been forever damaged...Boo fuckin' hoo..They are both corrupt,entitled fraud artists who deserve everything they got.

$7.8 million. You really believes he deserves that? If so,you're pretty sad. (I say with respect)

And if you feel the need that you have to whine and falsely accuse me of something I blatantly didn't do,you too don't 'have to'  OK?

So knock off the false accusations. Stop micro managing speech. Ans stop the false accusations.

I don't generally name people personally, so as to give them plausible deniability. In polite company, we do not say that people are animals, whether dogs, bitches, pigs, sows, etc. If you can't understand that, it is not because I am a "weasel" or whatever other animal you want to call me.

Your furious reaction clearly indicates you feel guilty about something. If you calm down, you might feel a lot better.

It is wrong to make fun of people because of their personal appearance. Something they may have forgotten to teach you in grade school.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

progressive17 wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
It wouldn't have popped up three times if I didn''t have to explain and defend what I said.

Nor if you'd explained and defended it the first time.  You suggested (I guess) that he was a SKINNY pig.  Let's leave it at that.

But really, Alan, never feel like you "have to".

The man looks like a pig...skinny fat or otherwise..It's an obvious observation. This fat shaming shit is in your mind. And it's really sad that I moved on to stop the thread drift and you cant let go something I said that is as obvious as the nose on your face.

What next? If I point out that Trump's hair looks like a meerkat or a tribble I'm going to somehow be hair shaming? mongoose shaming? fictional Star Trek animal shaming?

We all call Trump an orange (fill in the blank)  are we shaming the state of Florida? It's called an observation and an obvious one at that.

Sorry you can't take the truth. It hurts,I know. But I don't lie. I'm honest.

And by the way,don't patrionize me,mmkay?

And to 'Progressive'..Your reply was typical of a weasel in the comment section of Youtube. Have the fortitude to address me personally and not piggy backing on someone else's comment. Your comment was something a 15 year old would do. Oh wait,I shouldn't have said weasel because now I'll be blasted for rodent shaming.

I don't take kindly on people who accuse me of something,especially when I explicitly explain and debunk the accusation.

Now,continue your love fest for poor Mike Duffy. Maybe you'll throw in Wallin too and cry into your beer about how unfair it is that people look down at them. Which they should.Not to mention how their 'outstanding reputations' have been forever damaged...Boo fuckin' hoo..They are both corrupt,entitled fraud artists who deserve everything they got.

$7.8 million. You really believes he deserves that? If so,you're pretty sad. (I say with respect)

And if you feel the need that you have to whine and falsely accuse me of something I blatantly didn't do,you too don't 'have to'  OK?

So knock off the false accusations. Stop micro managing speech. Ans stop the false accusations.

I don't generally name people personally, so as to give them plausible deniability. In polite company, we do not say that people are animals, whether dogs, bitches, pigs, sows, etc. If you can't understand that, it is not because I am a "weasel" or whatever other animal you want to call me.

Your furious reaction clearly indicates you feel guilty about something. If you calm down, you might feel a lot better.

It is wrong to make fun of people because of their personal appearance. Something they may have forgotten to teach you in grade school.

pfff. Not everyone subscribes to your morals. If the shoe fits,wear it. And some people,who I wn't name for argument sake,act like animals. Hence,they are cmpared to said animal.

Mike Duffy is a corrupt thieving pig. End point.

Now move on from the pig comment and keep with the thread subject.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

progressive17 wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
It wouldn't have popped up three times if I didn''t have to explain and defend what I said.

Nor if you'd explained and defended it the first time.  You suggested (I guess) that he was a SKINNY pig.  Let's leave it at that.

But really, Alan, never feel like you "have to".

The man looks like a pig...skinny fat or otherwise..It's an obvious observation. This fat shaming shit is in your mind. And it's really sad that I moved on to stop the thread drift and you cant let go something I said that is as obvious as the nose on your face.

What next? If I point out that Trump's hair looks like a meerkat or a tribble I'm going to somehow be hair shaming? mongoose shaming? fictional Star Trek animal shaming?

We all call Trump an orange (fill in the blank)  are we shaming the state of Florida? It's called an observation and an obvious one at that.

Sorry you can't take the truth. It hurts,I know. But I don't lie. I'm honest.

And by the way,don't patrionize me,mmkay?

And to 'Progressive'..Your reply was typical of a weasel in the comment section of Youtube. Have the fortitude to address me personally and not piggy backing on someone else's comment. Your comment was something a 15 year old would do. Oh wait,I shouldn't have said weasel because now I'll be blasted for rodent shaming.

I don't take kindly on people who accuse me of something,especially when I explicitly explain and debunk the accusation.

Now,continue your love fest for poor Mike Duffy. Maybe you'll throw in Wallin too and cry into your beer about how unfair it is that people look down at them. Which they should.Not to mention how their 'outstanding reputations' have been forever damaged...Boo fuckin' hoo..They are both corrupt,entitled fraud artists who deserve everything they got.

$7.8 million. You really believes he deserves that? If so,you're pretty sad. (I say with respect)

And if you feel the need that you have to whine and falsely accuse me of something I blatantly didn't do,you too don't 'have to'  OK?

So knock off the false accusations. Stop micro managing speech. Ans stop the false accusations.

I don't generally name people personally, so as to give them plausible deniability. In polite company, we do not say that people are animals, whether dogs, bitches, pigs, sows, etc. If you can't understand that, it is not because I am a "weasel" or whatever other animal you want to call me.

Your furious reaction clearly indicates you feel guilty about something. If you calm down, you might feel a lot better.

It is wrong to make fun of people because of their personal appearance. Something they may have forgotten to teach you in grade school.

pfff. Not everyone subscribes to your morals. If the shoe fits,wear it. And some people,who I wn't name for argument sake,act like animals. Hence,they are cmpared to said animal.

Mike Duffy is a corrupt thieving pig. End point.

Now move on from the pig comment and keep with the thread subject.

progressive17 progressive17's picture

How exactly is Duffy corrupt? He was cleared of all charges against him.

Sure, Duffy was a Tory shill after he was a broadcaster. But I don't see how that makes him corrupt.

Why do you have such a hate on? Don't you know such hate can be bad for your health? It can cause you to lose sleep and engage in other bad habits which are not good for you.

Oh - and don't tell me what to do. You have no right to.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

progressive17 wrote:

How exactly is Duffy corrupt? He was cleared of all charges against him.

Sure, Duffy was a Tory shill after he was a broadcaster. But I don't see how that makes him corrupt.

Why do you have such a hate on? Don't you know such hate can be bad for your health? It can cause you to lose sleep and engage in other bad habits which are not good for you.

Oh - and don't tell me what to do. You have no right to.

Read Sineed's comment. #14

And if you're looking for someone to join you crying over poor Mike Duffy and sympathizing with him,you're talking to the wrong person.

progressive17 progressive17's picture

I'm not crying over Duffy or sympathizing with him. However demonizing him is not getting to the bottom of the story. He was found innocent in a court of law, and I think that should count for something. How would you like it if you were charged with something, found innocent, and then people still accused you of the crime?

Even people we do not like are entitled to due process of law.

True enough, Duffy (and others) exploited a system which was full of holes. The whole Senate is a disgrace, and should be abolished, according to traditional NDP policy I fully agree with. The Supreme Court of Canada is a sufficient brake on the powers of Parliament and place of "sober second thought".

As a journalist and broadcaster, Duffy had a probably overdue and somewhat grovelling respect for the offices of politicians and the politicians themselves. That may have made him a perfect naive patsy for the evil machiavellian warmongering Harperites. Setting Duffy up to rise and fall in the Senate was more than likely a diversionary tactic so the evil machiavellian warmongering Harperites could cover up their many crimes against humanity and the planet.

As far as I remember, Duffy sought legal advice and was told his practices were OK given the rules extant in the Senate. Being a Canadian senator is a total position of unelected privilege, and allows a person to do things any other Canadian could not.

Duffy made the Senate look bad, and as such I think he did us a service. If a lawyer like Edward Greenspon thinks Duffy has a case, it should at least be heard.

Sineed

progressive17 wrote:
How would you like it if you were charged with something, found innocent, and then people still accused you of the crime?

You can be innocent of a crime but still guilty of malfeasance, such as ethical violations in the workplace that don't meet the threshold of requiring criminal prosecution, but are still bad and wrong. I think that's what we have here. Recall how it was reported that one of his first acts when becoming senator was to sit down and sign a stack of blank expense claims to make it easier for his staff to claim everything he could goodies at taxpayer's expense. I agree he was a convenient scapegoat for Harper, but remember that before Harper was PM, Duffy was pestering Chretien for a senator post. Duffy partly brought this on himself.

If this lawsuit leads to a serious consideration of abolishing the senate, it may be money well spent.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Seems to me that Duffy was pretty close on the continuum of "taxpayer financed French lessons (Giambrone)", "taxpayer financed English lessons (Stintz)", and "$16 orange juice" (Oda).  I'm really stuck when I try to think of reasons why any of these should be OK.

I'm also reminded of a GTA-area news item wherein the African Canadian Legal Clinic was recently defunded, following (among many other things) the revelation that their Director bought herself some jewelry with the organization's credit card.  She evidently paid it back (though there's actually not evidence of that) but really? 

The organization credit card is just stored in your wallet beside your personal credit card, and it was all just a tragic mistake/free loan??

If progressives want to oppose some of these pretty blatant "dips" into the publicly funded punch bowl, it would seem reasonable that they oppose all of them.  Sure, they don't exceed our defense budget, but do they have to before we can say "no, sorry"?

pookie

Duffy's lawyer is making some breathtaking legal claims.

1. Duffy doesn't have any Charter rights vis-a-vis his treatment by the Senate.  Nor does he have a credible Charter case simply based on the fact that he was charged, prosecuted and then acquitted of a crime.

2. There is a tort of negligent investigation (by RCMP), but it virtually never leads to damages in this amount. It's also weird that Duffy isn't including the Crown in right of Ontario, which, after all, is the one that choose to proceed with all 31 charges against him.

3. Vaillancourt's trial decision was an abomination as far as the criminal law is concerned. He made some pretty basic errors of law that would have been corrected on appeal had the Crown chosen to go that route. That doesn't mean that Duffy wouldn't have still been acquitted (because V chose to believe his testimony), but V's reasoning that Duffy was basically coerced into taking the money and claiming the expenses is nuts.  It's also not at all clear that V's reasoning will be binding in any civil trial.  Certainly, no court is going to be bound by his excoriating comments vis-a-vis the PMO and Senate.  Those were just obiter remarks.

4. Duffy has an uphill battle to even get the court to hear his specific claims against the Senate, which enjoys Parl privilege from court review.  Even if he could, he is basically making an admin law claim, not a tort one.  Newsflash: you don't get millions of $$ of damages in administrative law.

5. Trudeau's govt has zero motivation to settle.  Nada. None of this involves members of his team.  Duffy wants to depose Stephen Harper and other Con Sens?  Oh well.  Possible that the Senate could offer him the docked pay for the time of his suspension.  That's it.

 

progressive17 progressive17's picture

Shoot for the stars and you'll hit the moon, and maybe Duffy is shooting for millions to get his salary back...

pookie

2 years of his salary will barely pay his lawyers' fees.

Mobo2000

That's curious, thanks for the detail Pookie.   Why is he proceeding if it's so stacked against him, do you think?   Just to defend his reputation?

pookie

I think he feels really hard done by, and has a sufficient support network that he is prepared to enter the fray.  He may be hoping that the Senate will be motivated to settle to get the issue out of the public eye (athough that motivation doesn't necesarily apply to AG Canada or RCMP unless Duffy simply agrees to abandon those particular claims).  

I will say that I think some of the Senate's decisions were harsh (ie., refusing to pay legal fees even though he was acquitted). I'm just not convinced he has a strong basis to get a damages award.

cco

If I were criminally charged with embezzling from my employer, they wouldn't pay my attorney's fees, even if I were acquitted. Should senators have that privilege? Should it apply to any criminal charges laid against a senator, or just those that involve stealing from the Senate itself?

Caissa

Duffy deserves his day in court. It will be interesting to see if there is a pre-trial settlement. I doubt it.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Duffy deserves his day in court.

Or at any rate, he's entitled to it.