Panel wants justice of the peace ousted

Criticisms of bail system and prosecutors flouted duty to be impartial, they rule

An Ottawa justice of the peace who called the bail system broken and criticized prosecutors in an op-ed in the National Post should be removed from the bench, a majority ruling from a disciplinary panel has found.

Justice of the Peace Julie Lauzon's misconduct and her own testimony at her disciplinary hearing are “so seriously contrary to the impartiality, integrity and independence of the judiciary that it has irreparably undermined public confidence in (her) ability to perform her duties,” the panel wrote in a decision released Friday.

That “erosion in confidence” has made Lauzon “incapable of performing the duties of her office.”

The majority of the panel found that removing her from office “is necessary to restore public confidence in the judiciary and the administration of justice.”

Lauzon wrote a March 2016 oped in the National Post in which she said Ottawa's bail courts were a “disgrace” that had “devolved into dysfunctional and punitive bodies,” and essentially called prosecutors bullies who dictated unlawful releases to justices of the peace. The op-ed “betrayed her ethical obligation to remain impartial,” the panel found.

The three-member disciplinary panel unanimously found in May that Lauzon committed judicial misconduct when she wrote the op-ed.

“We found that Her Worship used the power and prestige of her office to make disparaging comments about Crown counsel and the bail courts in Canada and, in so doing, failed to uphold the fundamental principles of judicial office,” the panel wrote.

The panel also found that the oped “was personal and retributive in that (Lauzon) intended to exact retribution on a number of Crown Attorneys in particular: those whom she believed had shown her or her office disrespect.”

Lawyers for Lauzon argued that the publicity of not only the backlash to the op-ed, but also the disciplinary process, had “significant effects” on Lauzon, who did not need any further punishment from the panel. If one had to be imposed, a reprimand would do, they said.

But the majority of the panel found that Lauzon's misconduct was deliberate — planned and thought out.

“Her Worship was the sole author of the article. She chose a forum with a high degree of visibility in which to express and disseminate her opinions about the administration of justice and the Crown Attorneys who appeared before her. She testified that she chose both her words and the forum with intention and purpose.”

Two of the three panel members recommended removal from her role while the third member recommended a 30-day suspension without pay with a reprimand.

Lauzon testified at her hearing that she stands by the opinion piece and her reasons for writing it. She also believes its publication had a positive effect on the bail system.

But, according to the panel, that “testimony also revealed that she continues to harbour disdain bordering on contempt for Crown counsel. This speaks to (her) lack of respect for her ethical obligation to appear to be and to remain impartial.”

The recommendations are now with the attorney general.

Lawyer Lawrence Greenspon, who represented Lauzon, said the panel's finding “failed to take into account the importance of this justice of the peace speaking out about the bail process in her court.”

Since the original op-ed, the Supreme Court of Canada, in two separate and unrelated decisions, has validated Lauzon's concerns with the bail system, Greenspon said.

“Given the four years during which she has continued to work as a justice of the peace, the decision to remove, by the majority, was an unnecessarily harsh sanction for an isolated act of misconduct over the course of an otherwise unblemished career,” he said.

Lauzon will be filing a notice of application to divisional court for judicial review later this week, Greenspon said. That appeal will come with a request for an interim stay of the order to remove her from the bench, Greenspon said.

Lauzon had also requested that her legal fees be covered in full. Those costs total $202,481.31.

The panel found that writing the opinion piece was not related to her job or to the duties of her office. “By writing about bail court in a national newspaper, however, she chose to blur the lines between the professional and personal spheres of her life.”

The panel unanimously recommended the attorney general cover $112,010.68, plus tax, of those costs.