Nude photos didn’t stop appointment of judge

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 28/07/2012 (5049 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

A senior judge who vetted Lori Douglas’s judicial application had not only heard the legal scuttlebutt surrounding her nude photos but also checked out what he called her “situation.”

Testifying before the Canadian Judicial Council inquiry on Friday, Justice Martin Freedman said by the summer of 2003, he was aware of rumours that sexually explicit photos of Douglas had been posted online. He also heard Douglas’s husband, Jack King, had been fired from the law firm Thompson Dorfman Sweatman after showing the pictures to a client and soliciting him to have sex with her.

So when Douglas’s application for judicial appointment came before a judicial committee in 2005, Freedman recalled, the group discussed the rumours. “This was a very unusual situation,” Freedman said. “We had a candidate who by all accounts was an excellent candidate, but had this… situation.”

According to Freedman, the committee dispatched one of its employees, now-retired lawyer Margaret-Rose Jamieson, to verify the rumours with Douglas herself.

During that conversation, Freedman and Jamieson testified, Douglas confirmed the photos had existed, but stressed they were destroyed as part of a $25,000 settlement between King and his former client, Alex Chapman.

Chapman breached that agreement in 2010, when he went public with his story.

Freedman testified Douglas also stressed she had been “an innocent victim” of King’s actions. That and the settlement satisfied the committee, which went on to recommend Douglas for judicial appointment — although it did not recommend her “highly” due to the photos, Freedman said.

The committee also drew attention to the existence of the nude photos in its letter to then-federal Justice Minister Irwin Cotler, Freedman testified. “We wanted to flag the situation for the minister, because it was unusual,” Freedman said. “We didn’t want the minister to be blindsided… We wanted to make sure he knew what we knew.”

Freedman’s testimony is expected to be contradicted by other members of the judicial appointment committee, who have filed witness statements saying they do not remember the committee discussing the nude photos, or agreeing to follow up with Douglas.

But the judge was firm in his recollection of the events, noting the fact Jamieson was directed to call Douglas is documented in notes of the meeting. It was not common for her to be directed to contact a candidate directly, he said.

Jamieson testified on Friday afternoon as well. Though she confirmed she had discussed the nude photos with Douglas in a phone call, she could not remember whether she had been directed to make the call.

With that testimony, the inquiry wrapped up its second week of hearings — and will now take an extended break as it’s not expected to resume until December.

The fact the inquiry will continue was news itself after it came under fire on Thursday, as Douglas’s lawyer Sheila Block called for the inquiry to fold, complaining the proceedings had become poisoned. But on Friday morning, the five panel members ruled the inquiry would continue, and asserted their right to direct their lawyer to question witnesses.

Although inquiry lawyer George Macintosh’s questioning of King was “firm and persistent,” Chief Justice Catherine Fraser acknowledged, she said that was necessary given apparent inconsistencies in King’s testimony. “In light of the manner the evidence had been given by Mr. King… one cannot fault (Macintosh) for an advocacy style well within (acceptable) techniques,” Fraser said.

As for Block’s concern Macintosh’s questions on behalf of the panel revealed bias, Fraser nixed the allegation. “We have not prejudged any issues,” she said. “Our minds remain open to persuasion.”

melissa.martin@freepress.mb.ca