What to know about Justice Maria Carroccia, the judge who acquitted the five Team Canada players
She used to work as a waitress
Her parents came to Canada from Italy
She worked as a defence lawyer before she was a judge
She has a degree in English language and literature
She once described herself as a lawyer who 'works in the trenches'
She thinks of herself as a plain speaker
Her ruling was criticized but also seen by many as fair and balanced
While there was outrage from some quarters at the acquittal, there were also those who praised the verdict and the
judge's careful work
. Karen Bellehumeur, lawyer for E.M., said as part of her statement after the verdict: 'It's important to understand that this case, the criminal justice system worked the way it's designed to work, to aggressively protect the rights of the accused. It's based on a concept that 10 guilty persons should walk free before one innocent person is wrongly convicted.'
Read the full text of the judge's verdict in the Hockey Canada sex assault trial
In
the questionnaire
Carroccia completed to apply for a federal judicial appointment, she listed under 'non-legal work history' two occupations. From 1980 to 1987, she worked as a part-time pharmacy assistant at Patterson Big V Drug Store, part of a chain that was later
taken over by Shoppers Drug Mart
. And in roughly the same period (1980 to 1986) she was a part-time waitress at Caboto Club of Windsor. Described
on its website
as 'Southwestern Ontario's largest and oldest Italian club,' the Giovanni Caboto Club turns 100 this year.
Carroccia is the oldest child of immigrants from Italy. Her parents did not finish grade school, and when they came to Canada her father became a construction worker, and her mother a homemaker. Their first language was not English and, growing up, Carroccia was often their intermediary when dealing with government agencies and English-speaking people.
'While they encouraged me to further my education, financially, they were not always able to assist, so I worked part time jobs as a student to pay for my education,' she said in her judicial application. 'They taught me the value of hard work. We have a close-knit and loving large family.
She also noted that, as the mother of two children herself, 'I have developed an ability to balance my professional life with my personal life.'
Carroccia's legal work history includes 25 years self-employed as a barrister and solicitor practicing in Windsor, with her practice restricted to criminal defence. Prior to that, she worked for five years for Gordner, Klein, Barristers and Solicitors, practicing criminal law; and two years before that at Gignac, Sutts Barristers and Solicitors, in the same capacity.
Carroccia was
called to the Bar of Ontario
in 1989 after graduating from the University of Windsor's faculty of law two years earlier. In addition to her law degree, she also holds an English language and literature degree from Windsor, earned in 1984.
She was
appointed in June of 2020 as a judge to the Superior Court of Justice of Ontario by then Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada David Lametti. This month, Lametti was named Principal Secretary to Prime Minister Mark Carney, after helping
with Carney's transition into office and as an informal advisor.
In her judicial questionnaire,
Carroccia noted that most of her time as a lawyer
was spent as a sole practitioner. 'I do not work in a large firm,' she said. 'I view myself as a trial lawyer who 'works in the trenches.' My contribution to the law is to represent my clients to the best of my ability, whether they are charged with minor offences or the most serious offences.'
'The audience for the decisions of the Superior Court of Justice is the average Canadian citizen,' she once said. 'It is my view that a judge's decision ought to make sense to an ordinary person, not just to lawyers, scholars and other judges. An individual should be able to understand the decision of a judge and the law upon which it is based even if he or she is not well-versed in the law.'
And Meaghan Cunningham, assistant Crown attorney, noted: '
A fair trial is one where decisions are made based on the evidence and the law, not on stereotypes and assumptions, and where the trial process respects the security, equality, and privacy rights of the victim, as well as the accused persons.'
Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark
nationalpost.com
and sign up for our daily newsletter, Posted,
here
.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Winnipeg Free Press
18 hours ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
Gone girl
It's just an ordinary day for Bryden, doing more than her share of parenting, taking her three-year-old Clara to daycare while husband Sam goes to the office, she working from home in their upscale condo until it's time to do the daycare pickup while hubby works late — except… Except Bryden doesn't show up at the daycare, because she's vanished without a trace. Oh dear. Tristan Ostler photo Shari Lapena, who was a lawyer and English teacher before turning to writing, is the Canadian author of 11 books including nine thrillers. And we're off again on another devilish mystery from Toronto lawyer turned bestseller Shari Lapena, a book full of nasty people all hiding scurrilous secrets in one of the most dangerous and depraved places on Earth: idyllic, affluent suburbia. Panic soon sets in, because this is so out of character for Bryden, who's altogether perfect and loved by all. Her car is in the underground garage, her keys and purse and cell phone all sitting in their condo, nary a sign of any kind of a struggle. The cameras show she didn't leave, and no psychotic strangers signed in at the concierge's desk. Golly, what could have happened? Lapena has made a fine career out of similar folks finding themselves in a real pickle, though she hasn't yet received the elbows-up memo, again setting She Didn't See it Coming in upstate New York, this time in Albany. The plot details revealed so far are all you're getting. Brace yourselves. There's no way adorable Bryden could be having an affair with another character, right? Same for Sam — nothing on the side for the faithful fellow? Oh, and that broken rib Bryden had a while back, everyone knows how dangerous doors can be, how they'll spring out of nowhere and have at you… Characters… we've got characters. Bryden's parents show up after she vanishes; in the in-law tradition, they don't like Sam all that much. If they have secrets, Lapena doesn't further muddy the waters with them. Bryden's sister Lizzie lives nearby. She's the sister who's not as good as Bryden at anything, but don't jump to conclusions that she resents that in any way — nope, don't start going there… Lizzie also has a thing about going on the internet under a pseudonym to talk true crime with a bunch of whackjobs who think they're better sleuths than the police; she'd never disclose any clues, surely… Paige is Bryden's BFF and Clara's godmother. Paige and Lizzie vie for Clara's attention and adulation, though assuredly, they're both adults about it. Sam and Paige, as you'd expect, just good friends, right? Just down the hall live Henry and Tracy. Their marriage had a rough turn a couple of years back when a woman accused Henry of abducting and raping her, but police couldn't make the charges stick. Always handy to have someone like that living down the hall when a woman disappears. She Didn't See it Coming Then there's Derek, whose car Bryden rear-ended recently when she was late getting to daycare. Derek runs a cybersecurity firm and he's given his piece-of-work wife Alice a lot to be suspicious about. What would the chances be that sparks flew when Derek and Bryden exchanged licence particulars? A sad backstory for Derek and Alice: only-child Alice's exceptionally rich mother was killed in a hit-and-run for which no one was ever charged. She inherited everything. Throw into the mix that at least one character has murdered and gotten away with it — maybe more than once. People are bed-hopping at a frantic pace. One person is cheating on the person with whom they're cheating on their spouse. Weekly A weekly look at what's happening in Winnipeg's arts and entertainment scene. Members of your book club may be forgiven if they wonder if everyone else is casually walking out of the office in the early afternoon of a workday to experience astounding canoodling with a married person married to someone else. This is Lapena's ninth thriller, and regular readers will see patterns emerging. How can so many scoundrels end up in one tiny corner of the suburbs and outwardly do so well? She Didn't See It Coming may feel a tad familiar, but Lapena does this so well. Just hope she hasn't based this tale on real life, or on anyone you know. Or on you. Retired Free Press reporter Nick Martin lived in River Heights, and has always favoured older neighbourhoods, where debauchery is unknown.
Winnipeg Free Press
18 hours ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
Consent or power?
Opinion One woman. Five men/boys. In a hotel room. A power imbalance by any measure. The not-guilty verdict is in after the sexual assault trial of a group of five former world junior hockey teammates. Despite the evident power imbalance, the question at issue was: did the woman, E.M., consent? On the surface she probably did. She willingly went to that room for sex with one junior hockey star fresh from a win. That star later invited four teammates to join them, claiming that she consented. Wasn't that the point where the dynamics in the room shifted from consent to power? Consent is much more complicated than a simple yes/no. When the person asking for consent has power over the person, is that consent freely given? Doesn't that perspective make the targeted person implicitly responsible for managing the situation? Power is also complicated. It can be used positively or negatively. A positive use benefits others, not only the one with power. One type of negative use is for self gratification, regardless of the effect on others. It is narcissistic domination. In his book, The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil, Philip Zimbardo says that, unless we remain mindful of what our roles in society expect of us, we can greatly harm others. At the end of the sixth chapter of his domination manual, The Prince, Niccolo Machiavelli demonstrated such harmful power. He advised the prince to always and in all things seek to make his subjects dependent on him for everything. Then they would be loyal to him. This advice was not about benefiting the subjects. By loyal, Machiavelli undoubtedly meant compliant, but compliance is not synonymous with consent. Compliance can be voluntary or given under duress. Machiavelli was advising the prince to use his power over his subjects — power imbalance — to create dependency for his own gratification, to increase his power over them. Machiavelli's advice implies that dependency inadvertently attracts domination and indeed many in positions of power are drawn to those dependent on them. Think Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby, Jeffrey Epstein and others. Were these young hockey stars in that room to benefit E.M. or just themselves? They were very young. Junior Hockey League players range in age from 16 to 20, so their prefrontal cortex impulse control was immature and impaired by alcohol. They were also members of the same winning team. They had bonded with each other. Drunk or sober, they shared team spirit, as do street gangs, members of a profession, members of a political party and so on. E.M. was not part of the team. Did she start out thinking she was the star of this show? If so, when did she realize that she was not, that they were still in team mode, a gang, and she was the puck they passed from one to the other? That she had no real power? They did. Targets of assault, domestic or otherwise, often don't fully understand what is happening to them until later, maybe years or decades later, that what they thought was love or admiration is actually abuse. That gradual awareness can make their testimony appear unreliable, especially under the letter-perfect scrutiny of the law. Similarly, those with power over others have to understand their own power and its effect on those without it. That understanding can also come gradually. When we occupy positions of power we are blind to our privilege as well as our failures and abuses. We don't like others pointing out our shortcomings and we will do everything in our power to retain our positive self image. High-level sports stars are like gods in our society. Whether they are aware of it or not, they are role models, people with influence, power. And their team owners and coaches exert power over them. One of the team members said he hadn't gone as far as the others. However, the title of Barbara Coloroso's book, The Bully, The Bullied, and the Not-So-Innocent Bystander, suggests that he was the latter, no less complicit than the others. If we stand by and do nothing to change this negative 'hockey culture' are we not also the not-so-innocent bystanders? Ruth Enns is a Winnipeg freelance writer.
Winnipeg Free Press
19 hours ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
Appeals court keeps order blocking Trump administration from indiscriminate immigration sweeps
LOS ANGELES (AP) — A federal appeals court ruled Friday night to uphold a lower court's temporary order blocking the Trump administration from conducting indiscriminate immigration stops and arrests in Southern California. A three-judge panel of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held a hearing Monday afternoon at which the federal government asked the court to overturn a temporary restraining order issued July 12 by Judge Maame E. Frimpong, arguing it hindered their enforcement of immigration law. Immigrant advocacy groups filed suit last month accusing President Donald Trump's administration of systematically targeting brown-skinned people in Southern California during the administration's crackdown on illegal immigration. The lawsuit included three detained immigrants and two U.S. citizens as plaintiffs. In her order, Frimpong said there was a 'mountain of evidence' that federal immigration enforcement tactics were violating the Constitution. She wrote the government cannot use factors such as apparent race or ethnicity, speaking Spanish or English with an accent, presence at a location such as a tow yard or car wash, or someone's occupation as the only basis for reasonable suspicion to detain someone. The Los Angeles region has been a battleground with the Trump administration over its aggressive immigration strategy that spurred protests and the deployment of the National Guards and Marines for several weeks. Federal agents have rounded up immigrants without legal status to be in the U.S. from Home Depots, car washes, bus stops, and farms, many who have lived in the country for decades. Among the plaintiffs is Los Angeles resident Brian Gavidia, who was shown in a video taken by a friend June 13 being seized by federal agents as he yells, 'I was born here in the states, East LA bro!' They want to 'send us back to a world where a U.S. citizen … can be grabbed, slammed against a fence and have his phone and ID taken from him just because he was working at a tow yard in a Latino neighborhood,' American Civil Liberties Union attorney Mohammad Tajsar told the court. The federal government argued that it hadn't been given enough time to collect and present evidence in the lawsuit, given that it was filed shortly before the July 4 holiday and a hearing was held the following week. 'It's a very serious thing to say that multiple federal government agencies have a policy of violating the Constitution,' attorney Jacob Roth said. He also argued that the lower court's order was too broad, and that immigrant advocates did not present enough evidence to prove that the government had an official policy of stopping people without reasonable suspicion. He referred to the four factors of race, language, presence at a location, and occupation that were listed in the temporary restraining order, saying the court should not be able to ban the government from using them at all. He also argued that the order was unclear on what exactly is permissible under law. 'Legally, I think it's appropriate to use the factors for reasonable suspicion,' Roth said The judges sharply questioned the government over their arguments. 'No one has suggested that you cannot consider these factors at all,' Judge Jennifer Sung said. However, those factors alone only form a 'broad profile' and don't satisfy the reasonable suspicion standard to stop someone, she said. Sung, a Biden appointee, said that in an area like Los Angeles, where Latinos make up as much as half the population, those factors 'cannot possibly weed out those who have undocumented status and those who have documented legal status.' She also asked: 'What is the harm to being told not to do something that you claim you're already not doing?'
