Rumpole and the Double Dippity-Do

Simple question.

But first, the background:  Retired Provincial Court judge John Rorke is pulling down $175 an hour for a 35 hour week as the acting child advocate in Newfoundland and Labrador.

That’s more than double what his predecessor made.

It’s also more than a sitting justice of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador pockets annually.

Rorke is also the commissioner for the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary Public Complaints commission.

So here’s the simple question:

Has Rorke parked his judge’s pension?

It’s one thing to be pulling in some pin money as a complaints commissioner, essentially a part-time job. 

But collecting a gigantic salary as acting child advocate and  collecting a pension at the same time seems a bit extreme if it were to be happening.

After all, in Ontario, the issue is a hot one across Ontario where the Globe revealed that school boards spent $16.7 million last year using retired teachers to fill in rather than hire new teachers. It wasn’t so long ago that the same thing happened here.  In fact, if memory serves, there was even a treasury board directive that placed some pretty strict conditions on the practice of hiring people who were already collecting provincial government pensions.

After all, it isn’t like Rorke doesn’t have a pot to piss in.

 

-srbp-

Rorke’s other Drift

The present advocate reviewed the case again - and I cannot speak for the advocate, only what was given to me - he felt that the review was unnecessary but would continue based on the actions of the previous advocate.

That’s child, youth and family services minister Joan Burke during Question Period in the House of Assembly on December 10. 

She’s referring to retired judge John Rorke and a review of a tragic death in Labrador initiated by his predecessor. 

Now all these high-fallutin’ legal notions might be more than a humble e-scribbler can grasp but surely it is just dead wrong for someone to state an opinion on an investigation before it is concluded.

Wouldn’t this be like the judge saying  - before any evidence had been presented - that he could see no reason in wasting everyone’s time on this and entering a verdict right off the bat?

And it would be even worse  - wouldn’t it? - if, having made such a preliminary judgment, he then communicated that observation to someone outside his office.

Now if Judge Rorke, as he used to be, has reviewed the material collected to date and has reached a conclusion, he certainly has the power to do so and cease any further inquiry into the matter.

It’s spelled out clearly in the law:

18. The advocate, in his or her discretion, may refuse to review or investigate or may cease to review or investigate a complaint where…e) in his or her opinion the circumstances of the complaint do not require investigation; …”.

How very peculiar that the former judge would persist in a review which he had already decided was unnecessary and that he could stop on his own authority.

How very peculiar indeed.

-srbp-