Latest news with #Scassa
Winnipeg Free Press
5 days ago
- Politics
- Winnipeg Free Press
Law experts, observers raise questions as Ontario adds virtual courtroom restrictions
Ontario's lower courts are introducing restrictions on who can attend proceedings virtually after what they describe as an escalation of interruptions, a move that law experts and observers say raises questions about transparency. The Ontario Court of Justice released a new policy last week that would stop observers from accessing court proceedings online unless they receive authorization from the judge or justice of peace overseeing the case. Those interested in attending court cases are encouraged to show up in person, the policy says. It does not apply to proceedings at the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. The lower court attributes the move to a rise in deliberate disruptions of court proceedings referred to as 'Zoom bombings,' which is when participants disturb a virtual call with inappropriate content or messages. 'These disruptions are an impermissible attack on the integrity of the justice system and the administration of justice,' an interim policy notice said, adding that they often cause delays and can have negative effects for participants, court staff and jurists. Boris Bytensky, president of the Criminal Lawyers' Association, says changes to the observer policy were needed because of the 'despicable acts of disruption' caused by certain attendees in virtual courts. 'This is the only way to ensure that proceedings that are conducted by Zoom and bring the significant benefits to the system and to the parties that virtual proceedings offer are free from any unacceptable interference,' Bytensky said in an emailed statement. But some experts warn that the policy could be a step back when it comes to openness. Virtual court hearings on Zoom were first adopted in 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic so court processes could continue amid government-mandated physical distancing rules. The continued use of videoconferencing technology in courtrooms since then has created a level of access people now expect, complicating the decision to change the policy, said Teresa Scassa, law professor at the University of Ottawa. 'At this point, the meaning of open courts or what is an open court has changed, and now you're taking away something that's there,' she said in an interview. While the new policy says physical attendance is still on the table, that is not an option for everyone, Scassa said. People with disabilities, those who don't drive and anyone who lives far away from courts do not always have the option to attend in person, she said. 'I have some sympathy for the challenges the courts are dealing with. But I do have some questions about whether the route that they've chosen is really the route that best respects the open court principles,' said Scassa. A small number of court proceedings only take place virtually. To observe these cases, the court says people need to request permission by emailing the court's communications officer — the same contact that media use to request access to virtual proceedings. Scassa said she has questions about how judges will decide who should and shouldn't get access: 'Does everybody get permission? Who gets denied permission? Is there some hierarchy?' The Ontario Court of Justice did not respond to a request for more information about the authorization process before deadline. Avid court observer Jenny Pelland said the court's new policy isn't surprising, as they've witnessed Zoom bombings many times over the past few years, especially in high-profile cases. 'I've seen some where it's been very graphic,' Pelland said in an interview, adding that the disruptions often display violent or pornographic content. Since the observer policy was announced, Pelland said courts have already been applying the rules differently, with some posting notices in the Zoom waiting room that public access is banned and others allowing access but requiring attendees to provide their full legal name or have their camera turned off. Such differences are not novel, with Pelland saying they've noticed limitations on access even in cases when they reached out to a judge or court clerk for permission in advance. 'For some courts in Ottawa, it's been almost impossible to log in for the past few months,' Pelland said. 'Some judges don't allow observers at all and it's not something new.' Alyssa King, associate professor of law at Queen's University, said understaffing is already a concern in Ontario courts, and adding more administrative burden for judges will cause inconsistencies in the way policies are applied across the province. 'It's not because anybody is acting in bad faith or trying to prevent the public from accessing the court,' she said. 'But they are people with a big workload and sometimes very high stress decisions that they need to make quickly … so any time you add to what they have to do administratively, that's tough.' A different process is still followed to allow access to virtual courts for victims and complainants. The court says they should get in touch with their local Crown attorney's office or victim witness assistance program. Jasminder Sekhon, director of community engagement, EDI and policy at Victim Services Toronto, said the court should consider updating its policies on that process to make sure it is more accessible and survivor-informed. 'Not just the victims should be able to apply, but also people should be able to apply on their behalf,' Sekhon said, adding that people who support survivors should also be considered to receive virtual access. For Linda McCurdy, a criminal defence lawyer based in Windsor, Ont., adding an extra step to prevent disruptions is a good way to preserve the integrity of the courts. 'I barely notice people in the court, but you really notice people on Zoom when they're doing stuff,' said McCurdy, adding that people tend to forget about formalities when calling in from their own homes. 'If you want to come and watch the proceedings, come to the court, come sit in the court. That's the way it's always been.' This report by The Canadian Press was first published July 25, 2025.
Hamilton Spectator
5 days ago
- Politics
- Hamilton Spectator
Law experts, observers raise questions as Ontario adds virtual courtroom restrictions
Ontario's lower courts are introducing restrictions on who can attend proceedings virtually after what they describe as an escalation of interruptions, a move that law experts and observers say raises questions about transparency. The Ontario Court of Justice released a new policy last week that would stop observers from accessing court proceedings online unless they receive authorization from the judge or justice of peace overseeing the case. Those interested in attending court cases are encouraged to show up in person, the policy says. It does not apply to proceedings at the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. The lower court attributes the move to a rise in deliberate disruptions of court proceedings referred to as 'Zoom bombings,' which is when participants disturb a virtual call with inappropriate content or messages. 'These disruptions are an impermissible attack on the integrity of the justice system and the administration of justice,' an interim policy notice said, adding that they often cause delays and can have negative effects for participants, court staff and jurists. Boris Bytensky, president of the Criminal Lawyers' Association, says changes to the observer policy were needed because of the 'despicable acts of disruption' caused by certain attendees in virtual courts. 'This is the only way to ensure that proceedings that are conducted by Zoom and bring the significant benefits to the system and to the parties that virtual proceedings offer are free from any unacceptable interference,' Bytensky said in an emailed statement. But some experts warn that the policy could be a step back when it comes to openness. Virtual court hearings on Zoom were first adopted in 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic so court processes could continue amid government-mandated physical distancing rules. The continued use of videoconferencing technology in courtrooms since then has created a level of access people now expect, complicating the decision to change the policy, said Teresa Scassa, law professor at the University of Ottawa. 'At this point, the meaning of open courts or what is an open court has changed, and now you're taking away something that's there,' she said in an interview. While the new policy says physical attendance is still on the table, that is not an option for everyone, Scassa said. People with disabilities, those who don't drive and anyone who lives far away from courts do not always have the option to attend in person, she said. 'I have some sympathy for the challenges the courts are dealing with. But I do have some questions about whether the route that they've chosen is really the route that best respects the open court principles,' said Scassa. A small number of court proceedings only take place virtually. To observe these cases, the court says people need to request permission by emailing the court's communications officer — the same contact that media use to request access to virtual proceedings. Scassa said she has questions about how judges will decide who should and shouldn't get access: 'Does everybody get permission? Who gets denied permission? Is there some hierarchy?' The Ontario Court of Justice did not respond to a request for more information about the authorization process before deadline. Avid court observer Jenny Pelland said the court's new policy isn't surprising, as they've witnessed Zoom bombings many times over the past few years, especially in high-profile cases. 'I've seen some where it's been very graphic,' Pelland said in an interview, adding that the disruptions often display violent or pornographic content. Since the observer policy was announced, Pelland said courts have already been applying the rules differently, with some posting notices in the Zoom waiting room that public access is banned and others allowing access but requiring attendees to provide their full legal name or have their camera turned off. Such differences are not novel, with Pelland saying they've noticed limitations on access even in cases when they reached out to a judge or court clerk for permission in advance. 'For some courts in Ottawa, it's been almost impossible to log in for the past few months,' Pelland said. 'Some judges don't allow observers at all and it's not something new.' Alyssa King, associate professor of law at Queen's University, said understaffing is already a concern in Ontario courts, and adding more administrative burden for judges will cause inconsistencies in the way policies are applied across the province. 'It's not because anybody is acting in bad faith or trying to prevent the public from accessing the court,' she said. 'But they are people with a big workload and sometimes very high stress decisions that they need to make quickly … so any time you add to what they have to do administratively, that's tough.' A different process is still followed to allow access to virtual courts for victims and complainants. The court says they should get in touch with their local Crown attorney's office or victim witness assistance program. Jasminder Sekhon, director of community engagement, EDI and policy at Victim Services Toronto, said the court should consider updating its policies on that process to make sure it is more accessible and survivor-informed. 'Not just the victims should be able to apply, but also people should be able to apply on their behalf,' Sekhon said, adding that people who support survivors should also be considered to receive virtual access. For Linda McCurdy, a criminal defence lawyer based in Windsor, Ont., adding an extra step to prevent disruptions is a good way to preserve the integrity of the courts. 'I barely notice people in the court, but you really notice people on Zoom when they're doing stuff,' said McCurdy, adding that people tend to forget about formalities when calling in from their own homes. 'If you want to come and watch the proceedings, come to the court, come sit in the court. That's the way it's always been.' This report by The Canadian Press was first published July 25, 2025. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
Yahoo
06-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Candidates and issues: Here's what's on the Stark County primary ballot in May 2025
Voters in Alliance, Canton and Massillon will see a slew of primary contests on the May 6 ballot. Stark Countians will also vote on a state issue, a countywide issue and local city, village and township issues. The filing deadline to submit issues and candidate petitions to the county elections board for the May ballot was 4 p.m. Wednesday. Write-in candidates can still join the race by 4 p.m. Feb. 24. Independent candidates have until 4 p.m. May 5 to file petitions for the primary election. Here's a look at what's on the ballot May 6 in Stark County. Edward Elum has served as judge of the Massillon Municipal Court since 1995. He will not run for reelection. Ohio law mandates that no person can be elected or appointed to any judicial office after turning 70. Edward Elum: Stark County selects Massillon judge as 2024 Veteran of the Year Andrea M. Scassa and Dan Funk have filed petitions to run for Elum's open seat. The two are unopposed in their partisan primaries. Scassa will be on the Democratic ballot, and Funk will be on the Republican. Scassa is a magistrate at Massillon Municipal Court. She was appointed to the position by Elum and Judge Joel C. Fichter in 2020. Fichter is also up for reelection. He currently would be unopposed. Scassa has also been law director for the city of Massillon and staff attorney for the Canton Municipal Court as well as serving on Massillon City Council. Dan Funk is a partner at law firm Baker, Dublikar, Beck, Wiley & Mathews, where he's worked for 25 years. He's also worked as a Canton prosecutor. Funk most recently ran for judge of a Stark County Common Pleas seat in November, losing to incumbent Natalie Haupt. Bill Smuckler served more than 30 non-consecutive years as a Canton city councilman. In 2023, Smuckler ran a campaign for Canton mayor. He lost the primary election to William Sherer. Smuckler, a Democrat, first joined city council as a ward councilman in 1984. Throughout the years, Smuckler has been council president, an at-large council member and majority leader. He's running for a council member at-large seat this year. He will face incumbents James O. Babcock and Crystal C. Smith and challenger Joe Cole in the Democratic primary race. On the Republican side, Carl R. Bliss runs uncontested. Voters across the county will be asked to approve a five-year, 1.4-mill replacement levy for Children Services. County officials are asking for the levy in order to fund care and placement of abused, neglected and delinquent children. The levy would replace the previous levy for Children Services that was passed in 2019 and expires this year. The current levy costs the owner of a $100,000 home $31.36 per year, according to the Stark County auditor. The replacement levy would cost the owner of a $100,000 home $49 per year in taxes, and would be billed on new home valuations assigned in the reappraisal last year. The expiring Children Services levy generates $12,680,000. The new levy would generate $18,733,000. Jerry Coleman, executive director of Stark County Job & Family Services, said child placement costs have jumped significantly, so not passing the levy would be "devastating" to the agency's budget. Job & Family Services: Replacement levy for Children Services needed to cover skyrocketing placement costs Canton Ward 1 Councilman Greg Hawk has been absent from the last seven city council meetings due to medical issues. Hawk originally pulled a nominating petition for reelection, but did not file the required number of signatures with the board of elections by the Wednesday deadline. Hawk has represented Ward 1 on Canton council since 2002. He could not be reached Wednesday for comment. Democrats Errick Freeman and Darren Mayle will face off in a primary to replace him on council. Daniel Dale Gates runs unopposed in the Republican primary for the seat. Katie Erchick Gilbert, Canton city prosecutor, wants to become the next judge of Canton Municipal Court. Erchick Gilbert ran her first campaign for public office in 2024. She lost the general election in the race for judge of Stark County Family Court to Matt Kreitzer. Erchick Gilbert will run in the Democratic primary in May. She will face Christy Pierson. Pierson is magistrate of the Canton Municipal Court. Mark T. Ostrowski is the only candidate in the Republican primary for Canton Municipal Court judge. They will seek to fill a seat held by Judge Richard Kubilus. * Incumbent Alliance Council president *Arthur D. Garnes (R) Treasurer *Jack Madison (R) Law director Andrew F. Selwa (D) *Caity Weyer (Caitlyn R. Schneider) (R) Council member, At-large Jorge I. Mendoza (D) *Kristopher Bugara (R) *Jennifer Kiko (R) *Phillip Gerard Mastroianni (R) Joshua Smith (R) Council member, Ward 1 *Sheila K. Cherry (D) Council member, Ward 2 *Cindy C. King (D) Council member, Ward 3 Jessica Risaliti (D) *Ed Lohnes (R) Logan P. Kelleher (Logan Patrick Tucci) (R) Council member, Ward 4 *James Edwards (R) Frank Bolog (R) Municipal Court judge *Andrew L. Zumbar (R) Clerk of the Municipal Court *MaryAnne Carper (R) Canton Council president Louis P. Giavasis (D) Roy Scott DePew (R) Kerry Jane Dougherty (R) Treasurer *Kim R. Perez (D) Council member, At-large *James O. Babcock (D) Joe Cole (D) *Crystal C. Smith (D) Bill Smuckler (D) Carl R. Bliss (R) Council member, Ward 1 Errick Freeman (D) Darren Mayle (D) Daniel Dale Gates (R) Council member, Ward 2 *Brenda Kimbrough (D) Council member, Ward 3 *Jason Scaglione (D) Council member, Ward 4 *Chris Smith (D) Council member, Ward 5 *Robert Fisher Jr. (D) Charity Rysak (R) Council member, Ward 6 *Jonathan Cooks (D) Council member, Ward 7 *John Mariol (D) Council member, Ward 8 *Richard Sacco (D) Don R. McVehil (R) Council member, Ward 9 *Frank Morris (D) Ryan E. Utterback (R) Municipal Court judge Katie Erchick Gilbert (D) Christy Pierson (D) Mark T. Ostrowski (R) Municipal Court judge Jeremy J. Foltz (D) Clerk of the Municipal Court *Phil G. Giavasis (D) Massillon Council president *Mike Slater (R) Treasurer Vincent E. Pedro (R) John Snee (R) Council member, At-large *Holly Bryan-Huth (D) *Sarita Cunningham (R) Antonio Guillan (R) Mandwel D. Patterson (R) Council member, Ward 1 Seth A. Marcum (R) Council member, Ward 2 *Eric J. Ray (D) Aaron J. Violand (R) Council member, Ward 3 *Mike Gregg (R) Council member, Ward 4 Doremus C. Redvine (D) Tony M. Townsend (D) Council member, Ward 5 *Julie Harwig Smith (R) Council member, Ward 6 *John Paquelet (R) Municipal Court judge *Joel C. Fichter (D) Municipal Court judge Andrea M. Scassa (D) Dan Funk (R) Ohio: Additional general obligation bonds to fund public infrastructure capital improvements. Children Services: 1.4-mill, five-year replacement levy for child care and placements, commencing in 2025. Would cost owner of a $100,000 home $49 per year; $17.64 in new taxes. Would generate $18,733,000 per year. Alliance: Local option, Sunday sales, wine, mixed beverages and spirituous liquor at Aeonian Brewing Co., 120 Canton: Local option, Sunday sales, wine, mixed beverages and spirituous liquor at Canton A Plus, Inc., dba A Plus Crab, 4309 Tuscarawas Street W. Massillon: Local option, Sunday sales, beer, wine, mixed beverages and spirituous liquor at KPRP LLC, 804 Wales Road. North Canton: 1.5% to 2.0%, income tax increase for general municipal operations, continuing period of time. Effective in 2026. Wilmot: 1.0% to 1.25%, three-year income tax increase for the general fund. Effective in 2026. Canton Township: 2.9-mill, five-year renewal road levy, commencing in 2025. Would continue to cost owner of a $100,000 home $50.91 per year. Would continue to generate $892,000 per year. Jackson Township: Local option, Sunday sales, wine and mixed beverages for Mac's Convenience Stores, LLC doing business as Circle K 5388, 6697 Wales Ave. NW. Jackson Township: 7.5-mill, five-year renewal fire levy, commencing in 2025. Would continue to cost owner of a $100,000 home $174.33 per year. Would continue to generate $13,134,000 per year. Lake Township: 1.25-mill, five-year replacement fire levy, commencing in 2025. Would cost owner of a $100,000 home $43.75 per year; $23.59 in new taxes. Would generate $1,419,000 per year. Perry Township: 2.9-mill, five-year additional road levy, commencing in 2025. Pike Township: 0.5-mill, five-year additional police levy, commencing in 2025. Would cost owner of a $100,000 home $17.50 in new taxes. Would generate additional $96,000 per year. Tuscarawas Township: 1.5-mill, five-year renewal road levy, commencing in 2025. Would continue to cost owner of a $100,000 home $30.39 per year. Would continue to generate $221,000 per year. Tuscarawas Township: 1-mill, five-year renewal fire levy, commencing in 2025. Would continue to cost owner of a $100,000 home $17.19 per year. Would continue to generate $127,000 per year. Tuscarawas Township: Aggregation, natural gas. Louisville Public Library: 1-mill, five-year renewal levy, commencing in 2025. Would continue to cost owner of a $100,000 home $16.55 per year. Would continue to generate $364,000 per year. Mohawk Valley Joint Fire District: 3.5-mill, five-year replacement fire levy, commencing in 2025. Would cost owner of a $100,000 home $122.50 per year; $43.51 in new taxes. Would generate $218,000 per year. Waynedale Local School District: 2.7-mill, 10-year renewal levy, commencing in 2025. All candidates and issues must be certified by the Board of Elections. This article originally appeared on The Repository: Here's what's on the Stark County primary ballot in May
