Answer questions about judge

Opinion

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 02/09/2010 (5515 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

It is tempting to dismiss the details of the sex life of a Manitoba judge as the distressing, collateral damage done by one man’s deluded belief the justice system is aligned against him. But the affair that caused Lori Douglas to temporarily step down Wednesday from the Court of Queen’s Bench raises legitimate concerns about her appointment in 2005.

Justice Douglas was appointed to the bench two years after her husband, lawyer Jack King, paid former client Alex Chapman $25,000 to tear up the pornographic pictures of his wife that he had sent to him. The selection process demands that candidates disclose anything in their past that may cast a negative light on them or the judiciary.

The pictures were posted on an Internet porn website. That should have caused the Manitoba judicial advisory committee, which recommends appointees to the federal justice minister, great discomfort. Mr. King settled with Mr. Chapman, computer programmer, after the latter complained to his law firm that Mr. King tried to coerce him to have sex with Ms. Douglas. The complaint was made shortly after Mr. King completed Mr. Chapman’s divorce proceedings.

Judge Douglas may well be ensnared undeservedly, but she knew at the time of her screening for the bench that her history counted. She had a duty to disclose. Mr. King’s lawyer insisted Wednesday that she did, raising the question about the committee’s deliberations and decision.

Would-be judges are subjected to real scrutiny during application. Six references are required, along with declarations on specific personal, financial and professional issues. The provincial law society must disclose any blight on a lawyer’s record, and is asked if there is anything about a candidate the committee should know. Candidates are asked point blank if they are having money problems, are in arrears on child support or taxes, or have ever had problems with alcohol or drugs. Short of a public hearing, the vetting hurdles are intimidating.

There is good reason for this. Judges are subject to public scrutiny. Their decisions can turn on their opinion of the credibility of those who come before them. A justice minister, in selecting appropriate candidates for the bench, has to protect the reputation of the justice system: a federal court judge who cheats on his income tax return is hardly the guy to deliberate on the conduct of those Revenue Canada accuses of tax fraud.

To be sure, Mr. Chapman’s conduct raises serious doubts about his motive and his credibility. He could have complained to the law society in 2003; instead, he took Mr. King’s money. He filed complaints in July to the law society and to the Judicial Council of Canada because, he said, he is tired of "protecting Jack King and Lori Douglas," implying he still is being wrongly done by. He filed lawsuits seeking $67 million damages on Wednesday.

But the public’s interest lies in being assured judges are beyond the reach of such troubles. Aside from being held to a higher standard, judges — like anyone wielding power or influence in public office — cannot be seen to be vulnerable to extortion or bribes. The publishing of pornographic pictures on the Internet presents an abiding threat that should not have been ignored nor dismissed.

There were many within the legal community who were aware of the King/Douglas troubles. But questions linger about how Lori Douglas’ travails passed the sniff test of the judicial advisory committee. It would seem they would have disqualified even an innocent party doubly victimized by the unsavoury actions of others.

Barring conflict, the Canadian Judicial Council, of which Judge Douglas is a member, should be capable of hearing the complaint against her and must do so promptly. For his part, federal Justice Minister Rob Nicholson needs to launch an independent review of Judge Douglas’ judicial appointment and report publicly on the matter. Canadians need to have faith that appointees cannot be held hostage by skeletons rattling in the closet.