Joe Volpe stays in the race, while the Liberal Party executive takes one in the gut:
Liberal leadership candidate Joe Volpe says he's grateful the party has withdrawn a $20,000 fine levied for membership irregularities, but that the vindication has come too late to help his campaign.
A Liberal party appeal panel ruled Wednesday the fine had been levied in error on Sept. 29, just as party members were about to begin electing the 4,300 delegates that will attend the leadership convention in Montreal and select a new leader on Dec. 2.
Of course, the news of the fine on the eve of the delegate selection weekend hurt Volpe badly, so if the goal was to take Volpe out as a major factor in the leadership race, mission accomplished. Well, probably. With this victory, Volpe's campaign might be invigourated. No one can be expecting a leadership win for Volpe, but there is always revenge for the also-rans.
For Volpe, though, this fight is over, because Permanent Appeals Committee decisions are final and cannot be appealed:
There shall be a Permanent Appeal Committee that shall consist of two Co-Chairs, one of whom shall be male and one of whom shall be female, nominated by the Leader and the President, and appointed by the National Executive and one representative appointed by each provincial/territorial association.
Decisions of the Permanent Appeal Committee adjudicators shall be based on rules and regulations adopted in accordance with this Constitution and shall be final and not subject to appeal.
Interestingly, Joe Volpe tried to be released from the gag rule:
Rule 9(5) of the Rules of the Permanent Appeal Committee requires parties appearing before a Panel of the PAC to file an undertaking not to discuss the appeal or the result of the appeal with the public except by delivering the reasons for the decision arising from the appeal. At the conclusion of the hearing, counsel for Mr. Volpe asked that Mr Volpe and the Party be released from the undertaking so that Mr Volpe can attempt to redress the damage announcement of the $20,000 fine has caused him. Counsel for the Party opposes this application.
After considering submissions from both counsel, this Panel has concluded that there is no reason to waive the requirements of Rule 9(5).
The Panel does not provide an explanation of why there is "no reason" to waive the rule. It can be argued that Volpe did suffer damage from the timing of the announcement of the fine. Did the Liberal party argue that there is no way Volpe could win, so whatever damage he suffered was ultimately irrelevant? Did the Panel decide therefore that there was no point to give Volpe further relief, since it could not help him, but it could hurt the Liberal Party?
I hope that wasn't the case, because that is not how justice is determined. You don't alter the punishment for a wronged party based on their relative importance, at least not ideally. Justice is supposed to be blind.
I guess since we are not likely to see the submissions from the two parties on the subject of the gag rule, we'll never really know why the Panel saw no reason to provide Volpe this relief.
By the way, I find this somewhat amusing. Volpe was represented by Neil Wheeler and Steven Polak, personal injury lawyers both.
Personal injury lawyers?
Ambulance chasers?
That Joe. What a class act.
To be fair, even if they are personal injury lawyers, they did beat the Liberal Party on this one.
