Skip to content

Letter: Nortel judge deserves full confidence

|Written By David Scott

The suggestion made by Prof. Steven Salterio (see “Prof questions expertise of judges, Crowns following Nortel ruling), that the outcome of the Nortel trial might have been different if the trial judge had “more experience with corporate law” is truly ridiculous and made more so by his acknowledgment that he could not say whether the decision of the presiding judge was right or wrong.

The Nortel case was a criminal trial that required the application of the rigours of criminal law, including the onerous burden of proof resting on the Crown. Justice Frank Marrocco has extensive experience with criminal law and was well-equipped from every point of view to deal with the evidence tendered before him. If the accused are acquitted in these circumstances, it can be assumed that the Crown failed to prove its case.

The notion that the system requires that the presiding judge have specialized knowledge of business practice assumes that he might then apply his own views despite the evidence. It’s a frightening proposition. This is the adversary system, professor. You can have full confidence in Justice Marrocco.

David Scott,
Borden Ladner Gervais LLP,
cover image


Subscribers get early and easy access to Law Times.

Law Times Poll

Ontario’s recent provincial budget calls for changes in benefits for catastrophically injured patients, including a ‘return to the default benefit limit of $2 million for those who are catastrophically injured in an accident, after it was previously reduced to $1 million in 2016.’ Do you agree with this shift?