Robert Latimer

August 8/2007
To Federal Justice Minister Robert Nicholson
I'm sure you have been busy getting familiar with your new position over the last few months. Now that my seventh summer in prison is slipping away I hope to draw your attention to my problems with the Supreme Court of Canada's January 18/2001 decision to impose a life sentence upon me.

It is very clear that in considering our situation the Supreme Court found we could have treated our daughter Tracy with what the Supreme Court felt was "a more effective pain medication", or "better pain management was available" for what the Supreme Court felt was "a medically manageable physical or mental condition".

The Supreme Court goes on to write on page 160 line 659 of my material:
"The appellant might have done so by using a feeding tube to improve her health and allow her to take more effective pain medication, or he might have relied on the group home that Tracy stayed at just before her death. The appellant may well have thought the prospect of struggling on unbearably sad and demanding. It was a human response that this alternative was unappealing. But it was a reasonable legal alternative that the law requires a person to pursue before he can claim the defence of necessity. The appellant was aware of this alternative but rejected it."

Now that I hope you can see how the Supreme Court found that we were obligated by Canadian law to treat our daughter with this "more effective pain medication". Because "it was a reasonable legal alternative that the law requires a person to pursue before he can claim the defence of necessity".

It is my hope that you can help me get an accurate assessment of this "more effective pain medication" that my wife and I know to be a fraudulent fabrication created by prosecutors to get the Courts to eliminate the jury from deciding if my actions were wrongful or not.

I believe it is important for Canadians to know their judicial process deals in facts not fraudulent fabrications. And when the Courts are misled, there is leadership in your office with enough integrity to seek out the truth in matters such as the treatment of us by the Courts.
It is my hope that you have enough integrity to break ranks with your many predecessors Anne McLellan, Martin Cauchon, Irwin Cotler, and Prime Minister Paul martin and get me an answer to the question I have been writing to Ottawa to have answered for over SIX YEARS.
On page 5 of my material I wrote the Supreme Court of Canada on June 24/2001:
"What drug could have been used to control Tracy's pain better?
Most Canadians want to live in a law-abiding society, and believe in the rule of law. What has been, and is being done to us is rule of slander, trickery, and deceit.

The Courts have created monsters of the police and prosecutors when fabrications fraudulently designed by the police and prosecutors are so readily endorsed with little or no appreciation of evidence presented before the Courts by medical professionals. When police and prosecutor's unsubstantiated medical claims are allowed to outweigh the testimony of the orthopedic surgeon that had actually operated on Tracy, the Courts are promoting deceit.

When Justice Binnie explained to a group of law students in Toronto that the fraudulent medical claims were just a side issue (shown on page 206 of my material), he was deceiving his audience, as well as anyone listening. The fraudulent medical claims were the most crucial element of the Supreme Court's January 18/2001 decision to imprison me for life.
If for instance the claim of "a better pain management was available" were true, and it were just a "side issue" what would be the harm in openly and honestly identifying the medication? Aren't the findings and the workings of the Court's in general funded by the taxpayers of Canada, for the good of the people of Canada in general?

Why does this medical claim now have to be a STATE SECRET?
Now there are only two Supreme Court judges left on the Supreme Court that were a part of the Court that decided to impose a life sentenced upon me. It is my hope that there can be another look at the way we have been and are being treated by this Court. I'm sure the two remaining judges are convinced their decision was solid, but I would like to draw your attention to how the Supreme Court wrote in their decision to imprison me for life on page 166 line 904:
"The appellant's second argument is a broad one, that the accused person has some right to jury nullification. How could there be any such "right"?
"
Yet when dealing with Mr. Gunning on May 24/2004 the Supreme Court of Canada wrote on line 126:
"it is for the jury, and the jury alone to decide whether, on the facts, the offence has been proven"

And on line 142:
"the trial judge effectively determined the merits of the defence. In doing so, he again exceeded his proper function."
And on line 376:
"It is perhaps trite but nonetheless fundamental law that on a jury trial, it is for the judge to decide all questions of law and to direct the jury accordingly, but the jury, who must take its direction on the law from the judge, is the sole arbiter on the facts. The judge also has the duty, insofar as it is necessary, to assist the jury by reviewing the evidence as it relates to the issues in the case. The judge is also entitled to give an opinion on a question of fact and express it as strongly as circumstances permit, so long as it is made clear to the jury that the opinion is given as advice and not direction."

And on line 408:
"it is important to note that the "air of reality" test has no application in respect of the question of whether the Crown has proved beyond a reasonable doubt each essential element of the offence. By his plea of not guilty, the accused in effect advances the "defence" that the Crown has not met its burden in respect of one or more of the necessary ingredients of the offence, the question of whether the Crown has met its burden is necessarily at play and must be put to the jury for its determination. This "defence" is squarely before the jury. There is no further threshold to meet. The imposition of any additional hurdle would run counter to both the presumption of innocence and the burden of proof on the Crown."

And on line 418:
"Hence, it is never the function of the judge in a jury trial to assess the evidence and make a determination that the Crown has proven one or more of the essential elements of the offence"

And on line 434:
"The basic features of the "air of reality" test and the evidential standard that must be met were thoroughly canvassed by this Court in Cinous and the analysis need not be repeated here. In the context of this case, it is important, however, to repeat what the threshold test is not aimed at. At para. 54, McLachlin C. J. and Bastarache J. stated:
The threshold determination by the trial judge is not aimed at deciding the substantive merits of the defence. That question is reserved for the jury. See Finta, supra, R b. Ewanchuck, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 330. The trial judge does not make determinations about the credibility of witnesses, weigh the evidence, make findings of fact, or draw determinate factual inferences. See R. v. Bulmer, [1987] 1 S. C. R. 782; Park, supra. Nor is the air of reality test intended to assess whether the defence is likely, unlikely, somewhat likely, or very likely to succeed at the end of the day. The question for the trial judge is whether the evidence discloses a real issue to be decided by the jury, and not how the jury should ultimately decide the issue."

And on line 469:
"leave for the jury the ultimate application of the law to the facts."

I believe I should also have the right to have the wrongfulness of my actions determined by a jury. Especially when the Courts have made such a poor attempt to evaluate the evidence, and claims the police, and prosecutors used against me.
After seeing how the Courts can be misled, it is no wonder that the Courts now leave it up to a jury to decide the merits or veracity of the evidence against an accused person.
After gaining an understanding of how poorly we were treated by the Courts it is my hope that you will order a new trial of me. A new trial that will allow a jury to decide if my actions were wrongful or not.
I can understand how it would be easier not to get involved with reviewing our situation. But it would be wrong for you to overlook such an injustice by the Canadian Courts.
I have included a copy of a letter to the editor of the July 23rd Victoria Times Colonist by an individual named Ellen Tarshis, and her thoughts on how she understands what our situation was after becoming familiar with the findings of the Courts.