Nothing happened in the financial markets today, so today the entire market update will be devoted to Canadian politics. Ain’t you lucky? But the integrity of the judicial system is important, as minority shareholders in Mascan Corp. can testify.
There’s a kerfuffle about a judge whose husband posted risque pictures of her on the Internet that has come to light because some little twerp has seen a chance for some legalized blackmail. There’s no indication the judge herself did anything wrong; unless you believe that allowing your spouse to take risque pictures of you is wrong. The whole story is no big deal, except for one incredible quote:
“If pictures of you naked end up on an internet site, it’s quite difficult to say you have the credibility to be a judge,” said Sébastien Grammond, dean of civil law at the University of Ottawa.
On the basis of what has been disclosed, I have no qualms about the credibility or ability of Associate Chief Justice Lori Douglas. However, I have deep qualms about the ability of Sébastien Grammond to think things through and to be responsible for the education of the next generation of lawyers. He should be removed from his post immediately.
“I think that no judge who has a cloud of scandal hanging over their heads is able to … act effectively as a member of the judiciary,” said Annalise Acorn, a law professor at the University of Alberta who specializes in ethics.
“I simply think it’s not consistent with the image of dignity and authority that the judiciary needs to have.”
Prof. Acorn said she would be “flabbergasted” if Judge Douglas stays on as a judge, and expects she might resign in the coming days.
It’s easy to tell member of a profession who are completely unable to do the work – they specialize in ethics. After all, how can you ever actually prove they’re wrong? It’s very convenient. The only surprising thing is that some authorities are actually willing to pay these people.
Alice Woolley claims that:
The problem is that her knowledge of those pictures prior to her appointment undermines the already fragile legitimacy of our appointments process. Applicants for judgeships are asked, “is there anything in your past or present which could reflect negatively on yourself or the judiciary, and which should be disclosed?” The question asks applicants to provide the committee with the information necessary to make a fair and appropriate assessment of the applicant’s qualifications to be a judge.
In this instance Douglas had to answer “yes” to that question.
…
It is not even about whether she would be a good judge. It is about whether people appearing before her could feel confident that their cases were being heard fairly and dispassionately. If those people included a black man, or a white woman divorcing a black man, or a Mexican family dealing with a child apprehension case, those people could reasonably wonder whether the racial stereotyping that the website reflects is one that Douglas shares, and that will impact her judgment.
The last sentence is pure bullshit. These people could wonder, complain and appeal, but not reasonably. If they wanted, they could always demand that the judge recuse herself. It’s just another legal manoevre.
But wait! We have not yet finished plumbing the depths of Alice Woolley’s ignorance. Clearly, Douglas’ behaviour is not, in and of itself, a factor. So what if … what if she’d be sunbathing topless and her husband had posted those pictures? What if it wasn’t her husband, but a voyeur posted pictures of her on the internet? What if he had identified her? What if he had claimed he could arrange sexual liasons with her? What if he claimed she liked Mexicans, wink-wink nudge-nudge? What if it wasn’t even a topless picture, it was her official picture taken during her investiture?
Alice Woolley’s series of assertions – they are far too childish to be honoured with the sobriquet of “argument” – work equally well in any of these situations.
We can go further. What if a tireless research finds that, while in high school, Douglas answered a Teen Queen Magazeen quiz by circling the “tall dark and handsome” choice for ‘Guy you want’. When we consider this situation, we’re at least looking at something she did herself, not something done by a third party without her knowledge or consent. Does this expression of preference make her forever unfit to be a judge? What if she hears a case involving some short, fair, average-looking guy? In Alice Woolley’s anarchic dream world, in which assertion of bias is deemed equivalent to proof of bias, such a thing would bar her – and, basically, every living, breathing human on the planet – from the judiciary.
Alice Woolley is a fool – and a dangerous fool at that, for urging standards that will accomplish nothing but making judges easier to blackmail.
Honestly, the howls for Douglas’ head are so shockingly removed from any semblence of intellectual rigour that one has to wonder if the real story is being told – when smart people say dumb things, it’s often because they don’t want to say the sleazy thing, as when doctors claim they won’t give terminal patients sufficient painkillers ‘because there is the chance of addiction’, when the real story is that they don’t want to get a call from the ministry and fill out the painkiller forms. Are the critics going after her for some other, less publicly expressible reason? Was she appointed by the wrong party? In Harper’s Canada, did she find the wrong person liable?
It was another good day on the Canadian preferred share market, with PerpetualDiscounts gaining 11bp and FixedResets winning 2bp. Volume and volatility were enough to make the day interesting.
| HIMIPref™ Preferred Indices These values reflect the December 2008 revision of the HIMIPref™ Indices Values are provisional and are finalized monthly |
|||||||
| Index | Mean Current Yield (at bid) |
Median YTW |
Median Average Trading Value |
Median Mod Dur (YTW) |
Issues | Day’s Perf. | Index Value |
| Ratchet | 0.00 % | 0.00 % | 0 | 0.00 | 0 | -0.3214 % | 2,028.0 |
| FixedFloater | 0.00 % | 0.00 % | 0 | 0.00 | 0 | -0.3214 % | 3,072.2 |
| Floater | 2.74 % | 3.27 % | 58,407 | 19.00 | 3 | -0.3214 % | 2,189.7 |
| OpRet | 4.89 % | 3.59 % | 102,951 | 0.24 | 9 | 0.0515 % | 2,356.4 |
| SplitShare | 6.00 % | -36.75 % | 70,620 | 0.09 | 2 | 1.1307 % | 2,344.7 |
| Interest-Bearing | 0.00 % | 0.00 % | 0 | 0.00 | 0 | 0.0515 % | 2,154.7 |
| Perpetual-Premium | 5.75 % | 5.55 % | 121,928 | 5.55 | 14 | -0.0169 % | 1,969.1 |
| Perpetual-Discount | 5.69 % | 5.79 % | 188,386 | 14.18 | 63 | 0.1103 % | 1,910.8 |
| FixedReset | 5.27 % | 3.13 % | 273,360 | 3.35 | 47 | 0.0219 % | 2,256.0 |
| Performance Highlights | |||
| Issue | Index | Change | Notes |
| RY.PR.H | Perpetual-Premium | -1.80 % | YTW SCENARIO Maturity Type : Call Maturity Date : 2017-06-23 Maturity Price : 25.00 Evaluated at bid price : 25.08 Bid-YTW : 5.66 % |
| GWO.PR.M | Perpetual-Discount | -1.53 % | YTW SCENARIO Maturity Type : Limit Maturity Maturity Date : 2040-09-02 Maturity Price : 24.22 Evaluated at bid price : 24.42 Bid-YTW : 5.94 % |
| BNS.PR.P | FixedReset | -1.35 % | YTW SCENARIO Maturity Type : Call Maturity Date : 2013-05-25 Maturity Price : 25.00 Evaluated at bid price : 26.24 Bid-YTW : 3.21 % |
| RY.PR.W | Perpetual-Discount | -1.14 % | YTW SCENARIO Maturity Type : Limit Maturity Maturity Date : 2040-09-02 Maturity Price : 22.42 Evaluated at bid price : 22.60 Bid-YTW : 5.45 % |
| BNA.PR.C | SplitShare | 1.09 % | YTW SCENARIO Maturity Type : Hard Maturity Maturity Date : 2019-01-10 Maturity Price : 25.00 Evaluated at bid price : 21.29 Bid-YTW : 6.73 % |
| PWF.PR.L | Perpetual-Discount | 1.10 % | YTW SCENARIO Maturity Type : Limit Maturity Maturity Date : 2040-09-02 Maturity Price : 21.88 Evaluated at bid price : 22.00 Bid-YTW : 5.87 % |
| BNA.PR.D | SplitShare | 1.16 % | YTW SCENARIO Maturity Type : Call Maturity Date : 2010-10-02 Maturity Price : 26.00 Evaluated at bid price : 27.01 Bid-YTW : -36.75 % |
| HSB.PR.C | Perpetual-Discount | 1.28 % | YTW SCENARIO Maturity Type : Limit Maturity Maturity Date : 2040-09-02 Maturity Price : 22.78 Evaluated at bid price : 22.99 Bid-YTW : 5.64 % |
| Volume Highlights | |||
| Issue | Index | Shares Traded |
Notes |
| MFC.PR.D | FixedReset | 103,626 | Scotia crossed blocks of 25,000 and 40,000, both at 26.55. YTW SCENARIO Maturity Type : Call Maturity Date : 2014-07-19 Maturity Price : 25.00 Evaluated at bid price : 26.51 Bid-YTW : 4.83 % |
| MFC.PR.E | FixedReset | 95,964 | Scotia crossed 40,000 at 25.81. YTW SCENARIO Maturity Type : Call Maturity Date : 2014-10-19 Maturity Price : 25.00 Evaluated at bid price : 25.82 Bid-YTW : 4.66 % |
| TRP.PR.A | FixedReset | 67,210 | RBC crossed blocks of 50,000 and 10,000, both at 25.92. YTW SCENARIO Maturity Type : Call Maturity Date : 2015-01-30 Maturity Price : 25.00 Evaluated at bid price : 25.92 Bid-YTW : 3.62 % |
| BNS.PR.X | FixedReset | 59,490 | RBC crossed blocks of 23,900 and 24,900, both at 28.10. YTW SCENARIO Maturity Type : Call Maturity Date : 2014-05-25 Maturity Price : 25.00 Evaluated at bid price : 27.95 Bid-YTW : 3.09 % |
| TD.PR.O | Perpetual-Discount | 50,329 | TD bought 10,000 from RBC at 22.80. YTW SCENARIO Maturity Type : Limit Maturity Maturity Date : 2040-09-02 Maturity Price : 22.52 Evaluated at bid price : 22.70 Bid-YTW : 5.40 % |
| MFC.PR.C | Perpetual-Discount | 47,418 | YTW SCENARIO Maturity Type : Limit Maturity Maturity Date : 2040-09-02 Maturity Price : 18.35 Evaluated at bid price : 18.35 Bid-YTW : 6.16 % |
| There were 35 other index-included issues trading in excess of 10,000 shares. | |||