Lisa MacLeod, 34, represents an Ottawa riding in the provincial legislature in Toronto. She commutes to Toronto from Ottawa  where she leaves her husband and her four-year-old daughter at home.

Recently Ms MacLeod appeared for the Crown in a high profile criminal case in Ottawa.  In his ruling on the case, Mr Justice Douglas Cunningham said he could not accept her testimony and rejected it out of hand.

In  his ruling Justice Cunningham said “the defense was able to show that there were a number of significant things going on in her life when she gave her statement  to the police …. She was commuting regularly to Toronto for her work, leaving her husband and  child in Ottawa… I must assign her evidence little weight.”

What the hell is going on here.  Can  you imagine if a male Ottawa politician was commuting to Toronto a judge would assign his evidence little weight because of that fact alone?

Ms MacLeod  called the judge’s ruling “pathetic” and “surreal”.  She added, “I  didn’t know truth had a gender and a family”

What do you think?

Is there a  double standard?

In his ruling Justice Cunningham said “the


  1. Neil, what are you talking about? You left your post unfinished and gave no details about the “high profile criminal case”. What was she testifying on? I must have missed something or the high profile was not visible from Longueuill.

  2. 2
    neilmckentyweblog2 Says:


    Th mayor of Ottawa, O’Brien, was charged with influence peddlling. He was acquitted. Th4 judge said he could not give credence to Ms MacLeod’s testimony because she was too distracted by her political responsibilities.

  3. Thank you, I had not linked Ms McClrod with O’Brien. It is indeed puzzling.

  4. 4
    Cornelius T.Zen Says:

    Good morrow, all!
    Puzzling, bedamned! There is no puzzlement here, only the stench of political influence. The judge dismissed her testimony, using an excuse. He has been bought off. His misogyny disguises a deeper rot.
    Although we are advised not to attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity, I see no stupidity here, only malice, born and bred of political influence.
    Of course, from here, there is no proof to be offered. If the judge had been offered some evidence of witness tampering or some coercion of testimony, I could understand the ruling. But since the defendant was accused of peddling influence, what makes you think he only bought off other politicians?
    Puzzling? If you’re not paranoid, you’re not paying attention – CTZen

  5. 5
    Janus Says:

    I see both malice and stupidity in this story. And misogyny.

    I like this statement from another blogger: “I’ll certainly agree that it sounds like someone’s brain can’t handle the rigour of their professional responsibilities, but it’s not Lisa MacLeod.”

    Short and pithy, check it out:

RSS Feed for this entry

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: