Share this Story: Christie Blatchford: The state is a powerful foe, and it almost crushed Mark Norman Christie Blatchford: The state is a powerful foe, and it almost crushed Mark Norman As Norman’s lawyer Marie Henein said Wednesday: 'No person should walk into a courtroom fighting their elected government or any sort of political factors' Photo by Errol McGihon/Postmedia Article content Most days, there were a half-dozen, often more, lawyers from the Department of Justice arrayed behind Vice-Admiral Mark Norman, a physical reminder that what he was up against was the state, with its massive reach and awesome power. The DOJ lawyers couldn’t begin to fit at the counsel tables, but spilled out onto the hard public benches. We apologize, but this video has failed to load. tap here to see other videos from our team. Try refreshing your browser, or Christie Blatchford: The state is a powerful foe, and it almost crushed Mark Norman Back to video Thus what Norman’s lead defence lawyer, Marie Henein, said at a press conference Wednesday after the Public Prosecution Service of Canada stayed the lone charge against her client: “No person should walk into a courtroom fighting their elected government or any sort of political factors.” Yet that’s precisely what the 55-year-old Norman, until his suspension in January of 2017 the No. 2 man in the entire Canadian Forces, faced. The PPSC and the Director of Public Prosecutions Kathleen Roussel, Henein said both in and outside court, did their job. In late March, the defence team handed over its entire case — the fruits of months of defence investigation and witness interviews, some of whom neither the RCMP nor Crown lawyers had deigned to question — to prosecutors Barbara Mercier and John MacFarlane, who were open-minded enough to review and test what they saw. Advertisement Story continues below This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. Article content https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZZBRjgqS78&=&feature=youtu.be This is what prosecutors are supposed to do. They have a higher duty than ordinary lawyers, and it’s to fairness and truth, and it’s an ongoing duty. Their inescapable conclusion? They had no reasonable prospect of convicting Norman of breach of trust, which is the prosecutors’ test across the country for instigating or continuing a prosecution. As Henein told Ontario Court Judge Heather Perkins-McVey, “In court, it is routine that we say that the prosecution has acted in the finest traditions of the bar but I think at this juncture in the political life of this country, it is important to point out exactly what that means. “The tradition, a tradition that is so jealously guarded and protected by those who understand the value of a constitutional democracy … is a tradition of prosecutorial independence.” Advertisement Story continues below This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. Article content Later at the press conference, lest there be any doubt what she meant, Henein introduced her all-female defence team with a shot across the bow. “Fortunately,” she said with a nod to her client, “Vice-Admiral Norman didn’t fire the females he hired.” Photo by Errol McGihon/Postmedia This of course was an unmistakable reference to the deposed attorney-general Jody Wilson-Raybould and former Treasury Board president Jane Philpott, each of whom fought in different ways to protect the independence of the PPSC and the DPP in the SNC-Lavalin imbroglio. They paid the price for it, too, when Prime Minister Justin Trudeau booted them from caucus. The happy result Wednesday, Henein said unequivocally, happened “Despite, not because of, the government.” Advertisement Story continues below This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. Article content The government, in its various arms including the Prime Minister’s Office, the Privy Council Office, the Department of National Defence and Treasury Board, so collectively dragged its feet and stalled on disclosing key documents that the defence was forced to bring what’s called a third-party records application. “We brought that application for a reason,” Henein said. “None of that (information) came willingly.” Thousands of documents remain outstanding. First, the government asserted cabinet confidence over all documents having to do with the Norman case, refusing repeated defence requests to waive it. Then, two weeks after Henein filed the third-party records application, the government did an about-face, abruptly claiming what’s called public interest privilege. Advertisement Story continues below This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. Advertisement Story continues below This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. Article content She noted that before the matter even got to court, almost a year before Norman was charged, Trudeau commented several times on it, once, in April of 2017, telling the Canadian Press the case was “likely going to trial.” As Henein put it, “To say there was an interest (from political government) in this case puts it mildly” and reminded reporters “that the people standing in the way of that full disclosure was the government.” She said what both this case and SNC-Lavalin demonstrated is that “justice system officials resist any sort of political interference … It’s a value very much worth fighting for.” He had a free press, which kept the case in the headlines and the government’s tiny feet to the fire And both cases, Henein said, show that there’s a failure in high places to understand the importance of prosecutorial independence and that “What you don’t do is, you don’t put a finger and try to weigh in on the scales of justice.” Advertisement Story continues below This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. Article content The honourable man who is Mark Norman was graceful and generous in victory. He teared up only once, when he was thanking Canadians for their “spiritual and financial support,” and mentioned the Second World War veterans who “were giving me $5.” He was lucky beyond bearing. He had a magnificent defence team, headed by Henein (who wore what I consider her combat leather jacket to court Wednesday) and her co-counsel Christine Mainville.<doc-sep>Sean Kilpatrick/CP Vice Admiral Mark Norman reacts during a press conference in Ottawa on May 8, 2019. OTTAWA — Vice-Admiral Mark Norman says he has an "important story to tell Canadians" in the coming days after federal prosecutors stayed their criminal case against him. "Not to lay blame, but to ensure that we all learn from this experience," Norman told reporters Wednesday during a press conference at a downtown Navy officers' mess. Watch: Defence minister says taxpayers will foot Mark Norman's legal bill The military's former second-in-command faced a breach-of-trust charge related to a leaked cabinet decision to delay the signing of a sole-sourced contract to retrofit a Navy ship with Quebec-based Chantier Davie. Norman's trial, which was scheduled to begin in mid-August, was poised to become a political headache for Liberals ahead of this fall's election. Here's a brief explainer of the complex case. How did it start? Shortly after the Liberals won a majority government, cabinet held a meeting on Nov. 19, 2015 to discuss a shipbuilding contract negotiated under the previous Conservative government. Cabinet decided that the sole-sourced contract, initially given to Davie, merited additional review. Cabinet decided to pause the Davie contract until more consultations with competitors could be done. News of that decision was leaked to CBC News the next day, triggering an RCMP investigation into the source of the disclosure that eventually produced evidence to draw a circle around Norman's name. Fred Chartrand/CP Prime Minister Justin Trudeau holds a news conference with his cabinet after they were sworn-in at Rideau Hall on Nov. 4, 2015. Weeks later, details of a cabinet decision regarding a shipbuilding deal was leaked to media. The CBC News reporter who broke the story was hired by the government in January 2016 to be a "senior policy advisor" to Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan. He has since left the department. General Johnathan Vance issued a notice in January 2017 suspending Vice-Admiral Norman from his duties "effective immediately." Before Norman was charged, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau raised eyebrows by saying the investigation would "inevitably" spark "court processes." Norman was charged with breach of trust in March 2018. What's the big deal about this case? The trial was set to begin in August, and continue throughout the election campaign. The possibility of star witnesses, including former Treasury Board president Scott Brison, Liberal MP Andrew Leslie, and former Conservative defence minister Peter MacKay being called to testify would have ensured more attention over the case. Adrian Wyld/CP Scott Brison is given a standing ovation during his farewell speech in the House of Commons on Feb. 6, 2019 in Ottawa. Brison, then the senior cabinet minister from Nova Scotia, was accused of political interference by Norman's lawyers because of his personal ties to the Irving family. Nova Scotia-based Irving Shipbuilding is the second largest shipbuilder in the country after Chantier Davie. Leslie announced last week that he won't run for re-election. The retired lieutenant-general had offered to testify for Norman at the trial. He arrived at the Ottawa courthouse Wednesday before Norman's court appearance to offer his support. Sean Kilpatrick/CP Liberal MP Andrew Leslie shakes hands with Vice Admiral Mark Norman as he arrives to court in Ottawa on May 8, 2019. MacKay's name appeared on the Crown's list of potential witnesses because the contract was negotiated under the previous Conservative government. The trial was set to begin in the wake of the SNC-Lavalin affair, which consumed the political news cycle in February and March. That affair caused significant collateral damage for the Liberal government, including the resignation of high-profile cabinet ministers Jody Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott — and their subsequent removal from caucus. It also affected poll numbers for the Liberals and Trudeau. Why was the case dropped? The National Post broke the news Tuesday evening that the high-profile criminal case against Norman would be dropped. In court Wednesday, lead prosecutor Barbara Mercier offered a cursory explanation for the sudden shift. The defence team, she said, came forward with "a volume of information" for their review and counsel met on March 28 to discuss the new evidence. "This new information definitely provided greater context to the conduct of Vice-Admiral Norman and it revealed a number of complexities in the process that we were not aware of." Sean Kilpatrick/CP Crown Prosecutor Barbara Mercier talks to reporters as she leaves court in Ottawa following a decision on Vice-Admiral Mark Norman on May 8, 2019. Mercier said it was in the Crown's view that some of Norman's actions were "secretive and inappropriate," but not criminal. She explained the charge was being stayed because there was no longer a reasonable prospect for conviction. She emphasized the independence of the director of public prosecutions in the decision. "There was no orchestration of this charge or of this case by anyone. There was no interference whatsoever in the [Public Prosecution Service of Canada] decision to commence this prosecution or in our decision to end it today." Norman's lawyer Marie Henein later told reporters at a news conference that the documents provided in late March by her "all-female team" on this case included extensive interviews and their own investigation report. "Fortunately the vice-admiral didn't fire the females that he hired." Prosecutors moved in a "very responsive manner" to the evidence, Henein said. Why are parallels being drawn to SNC-Lavalin? The common denominator between the Norman case and the SNC-Lavalin affair are that both involve allegations of political interference in prosecutorial independence. In the SNC-Lavalin case, it was alleged that officials in the Prime Minister's Office attempted to sway Wilson-Raybould, when she was attorney general, to intervene in a prosecutorial case involving the Montreal-based engineering giant. Months of debate ensued between the government and the opposition over Wilson-Raybould's claim that that she faced "veiled threats" and improper pressure to go easy on SNC-Lavalin. Sean Kilpatrick/CP Independent MPs Jane Philpott and Jody Wilson-Raybould vote in the House of Commons on Parliament Hill in Ottawa on April 9, 2019. In the Norman case, the allegation of political interference is around the disclosure of sensitive documents.<doc-sep>Send this page to someone via email The GoFundMe campaign that has amassed more than $430,000 for Vice-Admiral Mark Norman’s legal defence will remain active for now. READ MORE: Vice Admiral Mark Norman vindicated as Crown stays breach of trust charge against him Lee Hammond, the retired army colonel who maintains the fundraising page, told Global News that the fund will continue accepting donations until the government specifies exactly how much of Norman’s legal bill it will cover, and other details. “We have no idea when the government will reimburse his legal fees, how much they will reimburse, whether they will contest anything,” Hammond said in a phone interview on Thursday. WATCH: The Crown has announced stay of breach-of-trust charge against Mark Norman 0:35 Sajjan says discussions need to happen on payment of Norman’s legal fees Sajjan says discussions need to happen on payment of Norman’s legal fees – May 8, 2019 The Crown stayed its breach of trust charge against Norman on Wednesday due to a lack of evidence to convict him. Norman was accused of leaking cabinet secrets pertaining to a $668 million naval contract. Norman’s legal defence team, led by high-profile lawyer Marie Henein, brought forward new evidence in March during a meeting with the Crown, although it is unclear what that evidence was. Story continues below advertisement Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan told reporters on Wednesday that the government would cover Norman’s legal fees. When asked if that meant the entirety of his bill, Sajjan did not provide an exact amount. “Once we get all the information, then we’ll have a much better answer for that,” he said. Hammond said he spoke to Norman by phone on Thursday about the GoFundMe campaign. “We feel like it would be premature to shut down the account down just yet,” he said. “We have to proceed with caution here.” WATCH BELOW: Sajjan says discussions need to happen on payment of Norman’s legal fees 0:35 Sajjan says discussions need to happen on payment of Norman’s legal fees Sajjan says discussions need to happen on payment of Norman’s legal fees – May 8, 2019 “The one thing to remember is that these charges were stayed. They weren’t withdrawn.” Unlike a criminal charge that is withdrawn, a stayed charge can be resurrected within one year. Story continues below advertisement Hammond said that the vast majority of the funds raised have already been paid to Norman’s legal team. But there has been an uptick in donations in recent days. Hammond added that no funds will be withdrawn from the account any further “until we have clarity.” The GoFundMe campaign had received more than 3,460 donations since it was created last January, including from former defence minister Jason Kenney. The highest donation so far is $25,000 from an anonymous donor. Donations continued to flow in throughout Thursday. Sajjan’s department had previously declined to pay the legal fees for Norman, who once held the second-highest position in the Canadian military. Sources have told Global News that Norman’s legal fees could be in excess of $500,000. At a press conference on Wednesday, Henein urged the government to “say sorry” to Norman. Norman said that he is looking forward to returning to work.<doc-sep>Open this photo in gallery Vice-Admiral Mark Norman leaves the Ottawa Courthouse with his defense team, on May 8, 2019. Dave Chan/The Globe and Mail Vice-Admiral Mark Norman is returning to active duty with the Canadian Forces after the Crown dropped a breach of trust charge against him. The federal prosecutor said on Wednesday that new documents the prosecution received from the defence revealed that the senior naval officer’s actions in relation to a shipbuilding contract were “inappropriate," but that does not mean they were criminal. Vice Adm. Norman’s defence lawyer, Marie Henein, welcomed the decision, praising the Crown for its independence from political considerations in staying the prosecution. But Ms. Henein also criticized Ottawa for preventing the defence team from accessing thousands of government documents it said it needed to defend Vice-Adm. Norman. Story continues below advertisement “No person in this country should ever walk into a courtroom and feel like they are fighting their elected government or any sort of political factors at all," she said. “There are times you agree with what happens in a court, there are times you don’t and that’s fine. But what you don’t do is you don’t put your finger and try to weigh in on the scales of justice, that is not what should be happening," Ms. Henein said. Vice-Adm. Norman was suspended as the military’s second-in-command on Jan. 16, 2017, and charged with breach of trust last year for allegedly leaking government secrets in an attempt to influence cabinet’s decision in a review of a $700-million contract with Quebec’s Davie shipyard for a supply vessel. He denied any wrongdoing. The Crown’s decision ends the politically charged criminal case in which Vice-Adm. Norman’s defence team threatened to seek subpoenas for senior officials in the Prime Minister’s Office and the Privy Council Office to testify in court if they failed to produce the documents it wanted, which included communications between government officials related to the case. Vice Adm. Norman said on Wednesday that he has more to say about his ordeal. “I have an important story to tell that Canadians will want and need to hear. It is my intention in the coming days to tell that story, not to lay blame, but to ensure that we all learn from this experience.” Opinion: The Mark Norman case fizzles – and Trudeau must take responsibility Opinion: The Norman affair is a mess – but this isn’t SNC-Lavalin 2.0 Chief of Defence Staff General Jonathan Vance said he will discuss Vice-Adm. Norman’s return to regular duty with him at the earliest opportunity. “We have missed Vice-Admiral Norman a great deal, and I look forward to welcoming him back to work as soon as possible," he said in a statement. Story continues below advertisement Vice-Adm. Norman said returning will likely feel a bit surreal. “In some respects, it will be like I never left," he said. Federal prosecutor Barbara Mercier told court earlier on Wednesday that there was no longer a reasonable prospect of conviction. She said the defence brought new information to the prosecution in late March, and lawyers from both sides discussed the matter on March 28. “This new information definitely provided greater context to the conduct of Vice-Adm. Norman and revealed a number of complexities in the process that we were not aware of,” Ms. Mercier said. She said that to prove her case, she would have to show that his conduct represented what the Criminal Code defines as “a serious and marked departure from the standards expected of an individual in the accused’s position of public trust.” Ms. Mercier told reporters the new information from the defence raised doubts about whether the prosecution could prove Vice-Adm. Norman’s conduct was criminal in nature. “It’s relatively complex. I can’t get into the specifics, but I can tell you that it did call into question whether or not we could prove the ‘serious and marked departure,’ which is something we must prove in a breach-of-trust case, and prove it on a very high standard,” she said. Story continues below advertisement Still, the prosecution did not budge from its position that Vice-Adm. Norman acted inappropriately. “It continues to be our view that some of Vice-Adm. Norman’s actions … they were secretive and inappropriate. As one witness put it, ‘He crossed the line.’ As we had argued in this case, it was the means of communications and the content of some of those that indicated to us he knew he had crossed the line,” Ms. Mercier said. “However, inappropriate does not mean criminal.” Ms. Henein refused to disclose any details about the information the defence provided, saying she would not “get into the specifics of the documents that were provided," but said, “when you’re looking at the standard ... you’re looking at how business was being done, how was this particular contract negotiated.” Ms. Henein listed the ways the government was involved in the case, including the Privy Council Office’s role in preventing the defence team from accessing documents. In pretrial hearings, she said she would seek subpoenas for the Prime Minister’s former principal secretary, Gerald Butts, and clerk of the privy council Michael Wernick to testify in court if they failed to produce them. Ultimately, Ms. Henein said, Mr. Wernick provided a 60-page memo he wrote to the Prime Minister last fall related to the case that was “completely redacted.” The government has been so involved, Ms. Henein said, its lawyers decided which documents should be covered by cabinet confidentiality or solicitor-client privilege, and counselled witnesses. Story continues below advertisement “Neither we, and here’s the important part, nor the prosecution were given access to those documents," she said. Vice-Adm. Norman said that while he is pleased with the Crown’s decision, he is “disappointed” it took this long. “The alarming and protracted bias of perceived guilt across the senior levels of government have been quite damaging and the emotional and financial impacts of this entire ordeal have taken a toll,” he said.<doc-sep>
Share this Story: NP View: With Mark Norman, the Liberals again demonstrate their disrespect for justice NP View: With Mark Norman, the Liberals again demonstrate their disrespect for justice What happens next is anyone's guess, but it's hard to imagine it being good news for the federal Liberal government Photo by Sean Kilpatrick/The Canadian Press Article content The Mark Norman fiasco has ended, at least for now. The Navy vice-admiral and former deputy chief of the Defence Staff has won his legal battle. What happens next is anyone’s guess, but it’s hard to imagine it being good news for the federal Liberal government. Admiral Norman was the former head of the Royal Canadian Navy and serving second-highest officer in the Canadian Armed Forces when he was relieved of duty in 2017. The RCMP was called in by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government to investigate the alleged leaking of cabinet secrets to Chantier Davie Canada Inc. (Davie), a Quebec-based ship building firm. In 2015, the firm had been contracted to urgently convert a civilian vessel into a naval supply ship after Canada’s two elderly supply vessels were retired without replacements (replacements, in fact, had been planned for a full decade, but construction hadn’t even started by the time the last available ship was decommissioned after being damaged by a fire). The Harper Tories gave Davie a sole-sourced contract to do the conversion work, but when the Liberals won the election later that year, they seemed less enthused about the plan. We apologize, but this video has failed to load. tap here to see other videos from our team. Try refreshing your browser, or NP View: With Mark Norman, the Liberals again demonstrate their disrespect for justice Back to video Article content There’s no firm explanation as to why. It’s been theorized that former Liberal cabinet minister Scott Brison was advocating for a shipbuilder in Atlantic Canada, owned by New Brunswick’s Irving family, with whom he is personally friendly, to get the work and that the prospect of the upcoming Norman trial influenced his recent decision to quit politics. Brison, for his part, denies this. But in any case, Davie began to intensively lobby the government to proceed with the project and when the public learned through leaks to the media that Trudeau might pull the contract from Davie, the government was embarrassed into proceeding with the original plan. But the PMO, no doubt unhappy with being undermined, also began aggressively investigating leaks of cabinet confidences to Davie, and eventually settled on Norman as the suspect. He was charged with breach of trust in 2018, a year after being relieved of duty (but not, critically, discharged from the Navy). Article content That was then. On Wednesday, the Crown stayed the single charge Norman faced, announcing that it had received new evidence that cleared the admiral of suspicion of criminal acts. Norman walked out of the courthouse a free man, and will reportedly soon return to active duty in the military (his exact job is yet to be determined, as he had already been replaced as deputy chief by another officer). He has been subjected to an appalling and costly ordeal, and when it’s all said and done, no one can quite explain why. What has happened here? What was the purpose of all of this? More On This Topic Christie Blatchford: My top three 'lessons learned' from the Mark Norman case How evidence from Harper's Conservative government helped collapse the case against Mark Norman Article content The Liberals, from the prime minister on down, can’t answer that, but they’re certainly happy to tell you what didn’t happen. The prime minister led the messaging this week, telling reporters just minutes after Norman left the courthouse that there had been no interference from his office. None, zip, nada — and a series of his cabinet ministers took up that refrain in the House later that day. Norman’s lawyer, Marie Henein, agreed that the prosecutor had independently chosen to drop the case, and for the right reasons, but also accused the PMO and the Privy Council Office (PCO) — the country’s federal bureaucracy, until recently led by Michael Warnick, who just stepped down after being caught in a not dissimilar scandal around SNC-Lavalin — of trying to sabotage Norman’s defence by withholding access to critical documents.