Offensive Email Draws Reprimand, Fine

A private communication drew a public reprimand from a Hearing Panel of the British Columbia Law Society

 In September 2020, the Respondent was involved in a motor vehicle accident.  As a result of the accident, and an underlying medical condition, the Respondent suffers from chronic pain.  The Respondent occasionally takes medication to manage the pain. 

The Respondent is a supporter of B’nai Brith.  The national chapter of this organization self-describes itself as Canada’s “oldest independent Jewish Human Rights organization … a principled grassroots voice, dedicated to eradicating racism, antisemitism and hatred in all its forms … ”: https://www.bnaibrith.ca/who-we-are/.

 Concern about antisemitism has been a significant feature of the Respondent’s family life as their grandmother lost her entire family in the Holocaust.  The Respondent fears an increase in antisemitism in recent years.  The Panel recognizes that this familial history is tragic and significant, and provides important context to the unfolding of events.

SN is a lecturer in the Social Justice Education Department of the University of Toronto.  SN also serves on the Executive Committee of Independent Jewish Voices Canada, which describes itself as a “grassroots organization grounded in Jewish tradition that opposes all forms of racism and advocates for justice and peace for all in Israel-Palestine”: https://www.ijvcanada.org/about-ijv/.

SN was a participant in an online public forum hosted by Carleton University, titled “Challenging the Narrative: Is Anti-Zionism Anti-Semitic?”  Remarks made by SN during the forum were reproduced in a B’nai Brith press release, which was reviewed by the Respondent on or about February 26, 2021 (the “Release”).  Prior to reviewing the Release, the Respondent did not know SN and had never communicated with SN.  The Respondent was offended by the remarks.

Prior to reviewing the Release, the Respondent consumed ten milligrams of oxycodone.  The Respondent had last taken this medication on October 20, 2020.  The Respondent’s physician describes this medication as a potent narcotic analgesic, which has common side effects of sedation, which may affect cognitive function and judgment, and can result in short term memory loss, particularly with infrequent use.

In response to the Release, the Respondent located SN’s email address and sent SN the Communication.  The contents of the Communication were offensive, discriminatory and profane.  The Communication was not sent by the Respondent in the capacity of a lawyer, nor did the Respondent self-identify as a lawyer. 

After receiving the Communication, SN identified the Respondent as a lawyer.  SN made a complaint to the Law Society on or about February 28, 2021.

An investigating lawyer at the Law Society contacted the Respondent about the complaint on April 22, 2021.  Prior to their conversation, the Respondent did not recall SN or sending the Communication, but during the conversation, the Respondent recalled sending the Communication and recalled its content.  The Respondent expressed regret for the words.

On the same day, following the contact from the Law Society, the Respondent sent another email to SN apologizing for the Communication and expressing regret and shame for the language used, which the Respondent characterized as “nasty, vicious and uncalled for.”  The Respondent admitted insulting, swearing at and using a homophobic slur against SN, and expressed horror to have used “such callous, crude, and hateful language” towards SN.  The Respondent indicated that at the time of the Communication, the Respondent’s thinking was clouded by the use of painkillers.  The Respondent asked for forgiveness and an opportunity to apologize directly to SN by phone or online.

Following contact from the Law Society investigator, and on the Respondent’s own initiative, the Respondent began attending a series of counselling sessions with based on a consideration of the unique circumstances, the relevant mitigating and aggravating factors, and the range of sanctions imposed previously, this Panel finds that a reprimand with an order to pay $6,000 to the CCDI is a fair, meaningful and appropriate disciplinary action.  The Panel does not find that the proposed sanction is contrary to public interest in the administration of justice.  The Panel accepts the joint submission of the Law Society and the Respondent on the proposed sanction.the Lawyers Assistance Program.

Sanction

The parties initially proposed that a fine of $6,000 would be appropriate.  The Panel was asked to consider, as an alternative, that this fine be paid to the Canadian Centre for Diversity and Inclusion (the “CCDI”) instead of the Law Society.

…based on a consideration of the unique circumstances, the relevant mitigating and aggravating factors, and the range of sanctions imposed previously, this Panel finds that a reprimand with an order to pay $6,000 to the CCDI is a fair, meaningful and appropriate disciplinary action.  The Panel does not find that the proposed sanction is contrary to public interest in the administration of justice.  The Panel accepts the joint submission of the Law Society and the Respondent on the proposed sanction.

(Mike Frisch)