Ian Mulgrew: Manitoba case involving nude judge photos illustrates disciplinary dysfunction
Manitoba judge Lori Douglas has been on paid leave since 2010, collecting $315,000 annually. Now the judicial inquiry looking into complaints that her husband sent nude photos of her to a client has collapsed.
Photograph by: External
The collapse of the Canadian Judicial Council inquiry into nude photos of a Manitoba justice after more than two years proves the disciplinary process for judges needs repair.
The five-member committee led by Alberta Chief Justice Catherine Fraser decided Wednesday there was no point in continuing the charade and threw in the towel.
No wonder — the hearings into the complaint against Queen’s Bench Justice Lori Douglas have been in limbo for more than a year.
Talk about the Senate not being able to discipline itself — take a look at another constitutional institution, the judiciary.
These entire proceedings have been neither fair nor expeditious and public interest has been ignored.
It could have been another year or more before the legal squabbles were resolved and the inquiry underway again.
The committee decided that was ridiculous given the time and public money already incinerated.
“It is ironic that the only way this committee can meet the transparency requirements so essential for public confidence and inform the public of this critical flaw in the process is to resign but, regrettably, that appears to be the case,” the judges said.
This is the first time a panel has ever resigned but these bawdy proceedings had already drawn enormous unwanted attention to the flawed process of asking judges to police each other.
The council is chaired by Chief Justice of Canada Beverley McLachlin and includes 38 other chief justices and associate chief justices from across the nation.
It now has been proven to be a toothless, self-regulatory watchdog.
Top legal beagles from across the country were involved in this case, yet from the start it has been an embarrassment.
Justice Douglas is under scrutiny because of a 2003 sexual harassment complaint involving her husband, Winnipeg lawyer Jack King, and one of his former clients.
Alex Chapman claimed that while representing him in a divorce King sent him nude photos of Douglas and suggested the two have sex.
The judge has denied any knowledge of that offer — but there’s no question it was out of line.
King’s firm paid $25,000 to settle with Chapman in 2003. Nevertheless, he went public with the story in 2010 attacking Douglas, who had become a judge.
In 2012, Chapman was ordered to repay the 2003 settlement money for breaching the deal’s confidentiality clause.
Of course, the risqué pictures were posted to the Internet. Quelle surprise!
Still, the high-profile process of dealing with Chapman’s complaint against Justice Douglas quickly became mired in procedural wrangling and debate about bias among the brethren sitting in judgment.
Justice Douglas then complained about the adversarial grilling given her husband that further exposed their sex life.
She also alleged prejudice when the panel wouldn’t let her lawyer savage Chapman’s credibility.
When the committee proved unsympathetic, the justice took her fight to Federal Court and the battle moved to that forum.
The justice has been on paid leave since 2010, collecting more than $315,000 annually.
The five-member committee led by Alberta Chief Justice Catherine Fraser decided Wednesday there was no point in continuing the charade and threw in the towel.
No wonder — the hearings into the complaint against Queen’s Bench Justice Lori Douglas have been in limbo for more than a year.
Talk about the Senate not being able to discipline itself — take a look at another constitutional institution, the judiciary.
These entire proceedings have been neither fair nor expeditious and public interest has been ignored.
It could have been another year or more before the legal squabbles were resolved and the inquiry underway again.
The committee decided that was ridiculous given the time and public money already incinerated.
“It is ironic that the only way this committee can meet the transparency requirements so essential for public confidence and inform the public of this critical flaw in the process is to resign but, regrettably, that appears to be the case,” the judges said.
This is the first time a panel has ever resigned but these bawdy proceedings had already drawn enormous unwanted attention to the flawed process of asking judges to police each other.
The council is chaired by Chief Justice of Canada Beverley McLachlin and includes 38 other chief justices and associate chief justices from across the nation.
It now has been proven to be a toothless, self-regulatory watchdog.
Top legal beagles from across the country were involved in this case, yet from the start it has been an embarrassment.
Justice Douglas is under scrutiny because of a 2003 sexual harassment complaint involving her husband, Winnipeg lawyer Jack King, and one of his former clients.
Alex Chapman claimed that while representing him in a divorce King sent him nude photos of Douglas and suggested the two have sex.
The judge has denied any knowledge of that offer — but there’s no question it was out of line.
King’s firm paid $25,000 to settle with Chapman in 2003. Nevertheless, he went public with the story in 2010 attacking Douglas, who had become a judge.
In 2012, Chapman was ordered to repay the 2003 settlement money for breaching the deal’s confidentiality clause.
Of course, the risqué pictures were posted to the Internet. Quelle surprise!
Still, the high-profile process of dealing with Chapman’s complaint against Justice Douglas quickly became mired in procedural wrangling and debate about bias among the brethren sitting in judgment.
Justice Douglas then complained about the adversarial grilling given her husband that further exposed their sex life.
She also alleged prejudice when the panel wouldn’t let her lawyer savage Chapman’s credibility.
When the committee proved unsympathetic, the justice took her fight to Federal Court and the battle moved to that forum.
The justice has been on paid leave since 2010, collecting more than $315,000 annually.
With costs already through the roof and no end in sight to the legal dispute in Federal Court, it all became too much for the committee — which whinged that the Federal Court should not even be allowed to review its work.
“If this process is to work as Parliament intended, it is imperative that there be no ability to interrupt an inquiry with litigation in another court that spawns its own further litigation and takes the process ever further away from the object of the inquiry,” the committee wrote.
“This is not in the public interest. A knowledgeable public would think that a judicial conduct process has been created which is, by its nature, doomed to delay, wasted costs, confusion, inconsistency and perhaps, in the end, failure. And it would be hard to disagree with them.”
The committee pointed out as well the entire process puts the Attorney General in an “untenable” conflict of interest — “on the one hand, defending the process and the committee’s decisions by ensuring that submissions in opposition to the judicial review application are before the Federal Court; and, on the other, abandoning that responsibility in deference to the direct role of the AGC as Minister of Justice in the disciplinary process for superior court judges.”
Rather than continue wrestling with Justice Douglas in the hope of perhaps convening again months or even years from now, the panel quit.
“In due course, another inquiry committee may be appointed in respect of Associate Chief Justice Douglas,” said Norman Sabourin, the CJC’s executive director.
Or it may not.
Wait long enough and she’ll be retired.
Meanwhile, she’s a pin-up for the dysfunction of the disciplinary system for judges.
imulgrew@vancouversun.com
“If this process is to work as Parliament intended, it is imperative that there be no ability to interrupt an inquiry with litigation in another court that spawns its own further litigation and takes the process ever further away from the object of the inquiry,” the committee wrote.
“This is not in the public interest. A knowledgeable public would think that a judicial conduct process has been created which is, by its nature, doomed to delay, wasted costs, confusion, inconsistency and perhaps, in the end, failure. And it would be hard to disagree with them.”
The committee pointed out as well the entire process puts the Attorney General in an “untenable” conflict of interest — “on the one hand, defending the process and the committee’s decisions by ensuring that submissions in opposition to the judicial review application are before the Federal Court; and, on the other, abandoning that responsibility in deference to the direct role of the AGC as Minister of Justice in the disciplinary process for superior court judges.”
Rather than continue wrestling with Justice Douglas in the hope of perhaps convening again months or even years from now, the panel quit.
“In due course, another inquiry committee may be appointed in respect of Associate Chief Justice Douglas,” said Norman Sabourin, the CJC’s executive director.
Or it may not.
Wait long enough and she’ll be retired.
Meanwhile, she’s a pin-up for the dysfunction of the disciplinary system for judges.
imulgrew@vancouversun.com
Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Mulgrew+Manitoba+case+involving+nude+judge+photos+illustrates+disciplinary+dysfunction/9201971/story.html#ixzz2lfDVvs8r
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you for commenting.
Your comment will be held for approval by the blog owner.