Alberta authority justified in disbarring threats to Canada’s justice system

Opinion

It’s hard to imagine a more brazen attack on the independence of the judiciary than what unfolded in Manitoba in 2021.

Two Calgary lawyers, John Carpay and Randal Jay Cameron, made the astonishing decision to hire a private investigator to follow a sitting Manitoba judge who was presiding over a case tied to COVID-19 public health restrictions.

Their motive was obvious: to rattle the judge, to intimidate him, to see if he was, maybe, skirting some public health restrictions.

This wasn’t just a lapse in judgment or an overzealous move in a heated case. It was an outright violation of one of the most basic principles of our justice system — that judges must be free to deliberate and rule without interference, pressure or intimidation.

So it was no big surprise to learn this week that the Law Society of Alberta permanently disbarred both lawyers for their actions.

It was the right decision. Anything less would have been a dangerous signal to the public that undermining the justice system is tolerable if you don’t like the outcome of a case.

Lawyers occupy a privileged role in society. They are officers of the court, bound by strict ethical codes that go beyond loyalty to their clients. Their first duty is to the administration of justice itself. Without that, the entire system falls apart.

Carpay, president of the Calgary-based Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, and Cameron, a lawyer associated with the group, crossed the line when they hired a private investigator to follow Manitoba Court of King’s Bench Chief Justice Glenn Joyal in July 2021.

The very notion of tailing a judge — whether it’s to dig up dirt, expose hypocrisy or simply unnerve them — erodes the foundation of judicial independence. If judges believe they can be targeted and intimidated whenever they’re hearing controversial cases, they cannot do their jobs fairly.

And that was the point.

The justice centre has since tried to spin the law society’s decision as a “vindictive and petty abuse of process.” That’s nonsense.

It’s not vindictive to enforce the most basic standard of professional conduct. It’s not petty to say that no lawyer in Canada can ever be allowed to think it’s acceptable to spy on a judge.

If anything, it’s hard to overstate how serious the misconduct was. This wasn’t a lawyer missing a deadline or making an off-colour remark in court. This was an orchestrated attempt to put a judge under surveillance in an attempt to intimidate him.

Imagine if Carpay and Cameron had been able to get away with it. What message would that send to other lawyers? That intimidating judges is an acceptable litigation strategy? That if you don’t like how a court case is going, you can hire someone to dig into a judge’s personal life?

Canada’s justice system relies on a delicate balance of trust and respect. We don’t always like the outcomes of court cases. We debate and criticize rulings all the time. But there is a hard boundary between criticizing a court decision and hiring a private investigator to follow a judge.

If regulators had looked the other way, it could have opened the door to copycat behaviour in other high-profile or politically charged cases. That kind of environment would make it more difficult than it already is for judges to rule impartially, especially on controversial matters such as pandemic restrictions, constitutional challenges or criminal trials involving public outrage.

Public confidence in the courts is not automatic. It’s earned by the way judges, lawyers and court officials conduct themselves. If lawyers are allowed to weaponize intimidation against judges, confidence in the fairness of the system collapses.

That’s why the law society’s decision is so important. It draws a bright, unmistakable line in the sand: if you target a judge the way these two former lawyers did, you’re done. Permanently.

It’s also worth pointing out the hypocrisy in Carpay’s case. The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms brands itself as a defender of individual rights and freedoms. Yet here was its president orchestrating one of the most blatant assaults on judicial independence in recent Canadian history.

You can’t claim to defend freedom while trying to undermine one of the pillars of democracy. You can’t argue you’re protecting civil liberties while engaging in tactics that would make authoritarian regimes proud.

The disbarment isn’t just about punishing two rogue lawyers. It’s about preserving the credibility of the profession as a whole. Canadians need to know their lawyers are held to the highest standards, especially when the stakes are high.

The courtroom is not a political battlefield where any tactic goes. It’s a forum governed by rules, ethics and respect for the independence of the judiciary.

Carpay and Cameron forgot that — or ignored it.

The law society’s ruling was not “vindictive.” It was not “petty.” It was necessary. It reinforced the message that in Canada, the rule of law still matters.

tom.brodbeck@freepress.mb.ca