Judge, lawyer argument leads to rare contempt of court By: Dean Pritchard Posted: 6:52 PM CST Monday, Mar. 4, 2024 Last Modified: 9:57 AM CDT Tuesday, Mar. 26, 2024 Updates

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 04/03/2024 (956 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

A lawyer for a city doctor suing the Women’s Health Clinic was taken into custody last week after a heated exchange with a judge in an “extremely rare” case of contempt of court.

The courtroom set-to between lawyer Troy Harwood-Jones and King’s Bench Justice Ken Champagne happened Feb. 29 as Harwood-Jones was cross-examining Dr. Nadin Gilroy, former medical director of the clinic’s abortion program.

Harwood-Jones’ client, Dr. Ken Hahlweg, is suing the clinic, alleging he was the target of a campaign to force him out of the clinic and was denied a promotion to Gilroy’s position because he was a man.

Lawyers for the clinic raised repeated objections to Harwood-Jones’ line of questioning related to five-year-old clinic meeting notes, charging he wasn’t providing Gilroy sufficient details to properly answer his questions.

“My lord, it’s not a proper objection,” Harwood-Jones told Champagne.

“It’s a perfectly proper objection,” Champagne replied in seeming frustration.

“I have given you an opportunity to raise with her the evidence that suggests that question. Otherwise, you are just making it up,” Champagne said.

“That’s not correct,” Harwood-Jones shot back, “and if I were able to do my cross examination I could get to the next question.”

Champagne said he would let Harwood-Jones ask his question, and deal with the evidence that came up, telling Harwood-Jones: “You haven’t been fair to this witness.”

Harwood-Jones sighed audibly and cleared his throat before telling Champagne: “I remind you, my lord…”

“Don’t remind me of anything,” Champagne said angrily.

Harwood-Jones, refusing to be reined in, continued to argue.

“The court told me to sit down when I attempted to object when it was our case,” Harwood-Jones said, his voice rising in seeming anger. “I attempted to object and I was told by the court to sit down.”

Champagne twice ordered Harwood-Jones to sit down and stop talking before ordering sheriff’s officers be called to the court to take him into custody.

Champagne told Harwood-Jones’ co-counsel Jeff King to call their office and tell senior counsel he was citing Harwood-Jones for contempt of court.

“You can ask him who he wants to represent him,” Champagne said. “If he would like to represent Mr. Harwood-Jones, he should come here.”

Harwood-Jones, misunderstanding Champagne’s comments, said senior counsel Tom Frohlinger was in no position to take over the trial.

“He’s not here to represent your client, he’s here to represent you,” Champagne said. “I need to decide what I am going to do with you; if I am going to lock you up for 30 days. Have a seat before you get yourself into more trouble.”

Frohlinger arrived a short time later and Champagne provided him a “Coles notes” summary of events since the trial’s beginning in early February.

Champagne said over the course of the trial, counsel for the clinic raised repeated objections over evidence Harwood-Jones introduced that was “clear hearsay.”

“I tried to alert him to that. He was upset about that, and would not accept my ruling,” Champagne said.

“Typically, as you know, when there is an objection the judge gives the parties a chance to argue the objection and a ruling is made and you move on. Mr. Harwood-Jones has a very difficult time moving on.

“Over the course of the eight days (of testimony) he directly and inferentially made allegations of bias against me. That continued here today. I will have none of that. In my view, that is reportable to the law society. So he is in deep water.”

Frohlinger met with Harwood-Jones, who returned to court 30 minutes later and offered his “sincere apology” to Champagne and the court.

“I have a heartfelt and deep commitment to justice … and I don’t want anything in my conduct that undermines that justice and the justice of the court,” he said. “Having a few minutes to reflect on my behaviour, I see there is plenty for me to apologize for.”

Champagne accepted Harwood-Jones’ apology and dismissed the contempt citation against him after warning him to change his behaviour.

“In describing your behaviour (earlier in the trial), you told me words to the effect that you are a ‘dog with a bone,’” Champagne said. “I take that to mean you don’t give up … well sir, you are an officer of the court and you need to bury that bone.”

After a short break to confirm Hahlweg still wanted Harwood-Jones to represent him, testimony resumed.

The trial is now adjourned until March 26.

“It is extremely rare — though not unheard of — these days for a lawyer to be taken into custody during proceedings at which the lawyer is participating for allegations of contempt of court,” said University of Manitoba assistant law professor Brandon Trask, not commenting specifically on Harwood-Jones.

“While it is important for a court to be able to control its own processes … it can potentially be problematic for a judge to step in and direct the immediate, on-the-spot detention of counsel, essentially with the risk of the judge becoming the complainant, the investigator, the prosecutor, and the arbiter, all at the same time,” Trask said.

“Often, with cooler heads prevailing, it may be preferable to see a professional complaint submitted to the law society rather than rely on fairly extreme contempt of court powers,” he said.

dean.pritchard@freepress.mb.ca