A Loss For Thunder Bay
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice Divisional Court rejected an application of a justice of the peace to reconsider the sanction of removal from office for intervention in a matter involving her son
On February 5, 2019, the Applicant’s teenaged son was the driver of a car involved in a collision. Upon learning of this event from her husband by telephone, the Applicant went to the scene of the collision. At the scene, the Applicant and her son were informed by a police officer that “we believe your son didn’t stop” at the intersection. Police laid a charge against the son of failing to yield pursuant to s. 136(1)(b) of the Highway Traffic Act, a charge for which the penalty, upon conviction, is a fine of $85, plus court costs, plus three demerit points.
The Review Council found as follows:
We further agree with presenting counsel’s position that the hearing panel can take into consideration that HW Gibbon’s testimony denying that she knew that HW Chaput would be presiding over her son’s trial is inconsistent with the account she gave in her response letter to the JPRC, dated August 31, 2020. Her letter suggests that she knew HW Chaput would be sitting on her son’s case when she stated: “I had no intention of attempting to influence him in respect to any decision-making role he may have played in respect to the Trial of my son…as the decision would already have been made”. Furthermore, when she invited him, she believed he would have rendered his decision before their dinner and had no intention of discussing the case with him at dinner. We find that the statements in her letter to the JPRC to be a more accurate reflection of Her Worship’s knowledge and thought pattern at the time she extended the dinner invitation to HW Chaput.
This passage is couched in moderate language but is devastating substantively. It is a finding that the Applicant knew that HW Chaput would be presiding at her son’s trial – when she spoke to him the morning of the trial, when she extended a dinner invitation – and when she responded to HW Chaput’s text after the trial, cancelling his acceptance of the dinner invitation. It is a finding that the Applicant’s oral testimony on this point was false. It is in respect to an important point of contention and matters where it would be difficult to understand how the Applicant could have been mistaken. At the very least it reflects a lack of trustworthiness, as a witness, that impugns the Applicant’s general reliability.
(i) her son’s conviction was unfair as it was possibly related to race or his being the Applicant’s son, as people were not happy with her appointment; (ii) all of the court clerks in the Thunder Bay office are experienced and know not to leave notes on court files; (iii) she or her family were going to sue the City because her son was not treated fairly; (iv) she was under review by the JPRC and they were trying to take her job.
A Majority of the Review Council ordered removal from office
It is a loss for the judiciary that the Applicant may be removed from office as a result of the majority’s recommendation. It is likewise a loss for Thunder Bay, for the North West Region, and for Ontario. It is apparent that the majority were aware of this, and it explains why their conclusion weighed so heavily upon them. But they concluded – as they were entitled to do on the record – that they could not be satisfied that the Applicant would discharge her duties independently, impartially and with integrity in future. The desirability of retaining an indigenous jurist could not displace this core finding.
TB Newswatch,com reported on the case. (Mike Frisch)