News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 8.6K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 39K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 4.8K     0 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Tracey Marie Resetar (1992), of the City of Burlington, was found to be incapacitated and incapable of meeting her obligations as a licensee.
By Decision and Order dated June 20, 2007, the Hearing Panel ordered that: the Licensee is suspended indefinitely until she provides medical evidence to the satisfaction of the Director of Professional Regulation that she is fit to practise law. ( Counsel for the Society, Lisa Freeman / Counsel for the Member, Kenneth Hughes )

http://www.lsuc.on.ca/with.aspx?id=609&langtype=1033

It appears that Foster (Resetar) and/or the lawyer who acted for her in the 2007 proceeding (Hughes) sought access to the transcript of the 2007 proceeding (which was held in camera) and two exhibits used during that proceeding (which, being used in camera, would also have been kept out of the public files), in order that the transcript and proceedings can be used in civil suit started in 2009 (the parties to, and the subject matter of, which I cannot say, as our court files are not on-line - see the news coverage today about the collapse of the project launched a few years ago to bring our court files, etc. on line).


http://www.lsuc.on.ca/with.aspx?id=2147489001
 
Last edited:
Tory is getting his endorsements on CP2Ford right now. I am surprised that they bothered to show it.
 
Bebop17 said:
Here's the link to a lengthy pdf - I've skimmed up to page 15 so far and can't see the relevance to this thread - maybe someone else can.
Click to expand...

page 19

pud99 said:
Tracey Marie Resetar (1992), of the City of Burlington, was found to be incapacitated and incapable of meeting her obligations as a licensee.
By Decision and Order dated June 20, 2007, the Hearing Panel ordered that: the Licensee is suspended indefinitely until she provides medical evidence to the satisfaction of the Director of Professional Regulation that she is fit to practise law. ( Counsel for the Society, Lisa Freeman / Counsel for the Member, Kenneth Hughes )

http://www.lsuc.on.ca/with.aspx?id=609&langtype=1033

...
Click to expand...
 
Screen Shot 2014-09-20 at 11.51.38 AM.png
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2014-09-20 at 11.51.38 AM.png
    Screen Shot 2014-09-20 at 11.51.38 AM.png
    368.6 KB · Views: 1,155
kaboi said:
It's not true. Soks was the best TO had to offer...and look where that got him.
Click to expand...

For sure. I mean I was\am a Soks fan, and even though he had a rocky start in the very first debates. His retail politics skill was definitely not on Rob's level, but I thought he was improving in his public debates skills at least, I liked most of his policies, at least out of the roster. Maybe in an alternate universe where he held on longer until the seat switcheroo screwjob, who knows.

However barring any last minute surprises, which in this 2014 Wrasslemania is still not over yet. We're now down to Chow, Tory, and Doug in the mainstream name recognition arena. And I gotta say again, Tory and Chow is not really wow-ing me with their policies or their personalities. And I find that kinda disturbing considering they're running against FoFam.
 
Last edited:
Behop17 has the right link above ... The September 18th amended notice of application. Scroll through it - Ford is mentioned. Blair is mentioned and lawyers and judges. Long read - prostitutes and Ford and alluding to adultery in rehab.
 
CharleyDoo said:
Behop17 has the right link above ... The September 18th amended notice of application. Scroll through it - Ford is mentioned. Blair is mentioned and lawyers and judges. Long read - prostitutes and Ford and alluding to adultery in rehab.
Click to expand...

Nope, all of the links posted take me to "page gone", having tried 4 different browsers now. It must be me!
 
The original LSUC decision (2007), FWIW:

http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onlst/doc/2007/2007onlshp71/2007onlshp71.html

Re the decision to keep the case in camera:

"[3] The balancing that we are asked to perform involves consideration of the public’s right to know, and the Licensee’s right not to be disparaged unnecessarily. We believe that this is a very appropriate case for an in camera order, on the basis of the intimate personal detail contained in Dr. Wilkie’s report and the Document Brief. We order those two documents to be held in camera. This is subject to the exception that we accept counsel’s agreement to make public the last two pages (p. 50-51) of Dr. Wilkie’s report, as redacted by counsel for the Licensee generally. The one alteration is that wherever those pages mention a disorder, it should be described as “a significant psychiatric disorder”, where appropriate."
 
From the LSUC web site. The first link (the March 2014 disciplinary case) works fine. The second one (the Amended Notice of Application) generates "page gone". (But apparently only for poor little me!)

Screen Shot 2014-09-20 at 12.20.42 PM.png
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2014-09-20 at 12.20.42 PM.png
    Screen Shot 2014-09-20 at 12.20.42 PM.png
    36.4 KB · Views: 1,133
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top