Minister Of Health

The Alberta Law Society found that charges made against the then Minister of Health for personal interactions in the wake of COVID regulations were not established

Mr. Shandro has been a member of the United Conservative Party of Alberta (UCP) since May 18, 2018 and assisted in its formation. Mr. Shandro had been a member of the prior Progressive Conservative party since 1992 until its merger with the UCP.

 On April 16, 2019 Mr. Shandro was elected as a member of the Legislative Assembly of Alberta. Following his election as an MLA, he was sworn in as the Minister of Health on April 30, 2019, which ministerial post he held until September 21, 2021 when he was appointed Minister of Labour and Immigration. On February 22, 2022 Mr. Shandro became the Minister of Justice.

Mr. Shandro ceased practicing law upon his election as an MLA. However, Mr. Shandro maintained his active status with the LSA so that he might continue to practice law at the end of his political career.

He contended that the Law Society did not have jurisdiction over complaints about him in his politician role

As regards the claim of improper or collateral purpose, we certainly appreciate that the complaints arose in a heated political environment. However, even where a complainant has a political agenda, that does not by itself mean they do not have valid concerns about the conduct of Mr. Shandro. The complainants may have brought the complaints forward for a collateral purpose, namely political influence, but that does not by itself determine that the conduct did not amount to sanctionable misconduct.

The issue of off-duty conduct will be addressed further in this decision. Suffice it to say that the arguments around off-duty conduct are matters that are subject to consideration by a hearing committee, but only after all of the evidence has been considered. There is no basis for raising this as a preliminary application since that would effectively amount to allowing Mr. Shandro to have “two kicks at the cat”.

Integrity and trustworthiness are certainly important aspects of a lawyer’s character, but not all conduct matters involve or touch upon integrity. To confine the conduct of a politician to integrity matters is far too restrictive and completely inconsistent with the Act and the Code.

There is also no merit to the argument that the LSA should not be concerned with purely private or extra-professional activity. There is ample legal authority (which is addressed later in this Hearing Committee Report) that provides that off-duty conduct of a lawyer can amount to sanctionable conduct. Many of these cases deal with conduct arising in private situations or extra-professional activities.

A lawyer in public office may find his or her conduct being questioned by the manner in which they carry out their official duties, but also by virtue of their actions as a private citizen. Section 7.4-1 of the Code does not limit a politician’s conduct to only matters arising from official duties.

There was evidence that he and his family had been subject to threats

 At the beginning of March 2020, there were increasing personal social media attacks against Mr. Shandro because of his role as the Minister of Health. Evidence was heard from the Sergeant-at-Arms, N.L., who is the head of the Legislative Assembly security services and provides security for visitors and legislative staff. The Sergeant-at-Arms stated that Mr. Shandro’s file with Protective Services was between 900 and 1,000 pages. These threats included death threats, threats of physical violence and threats of sexual violence against Mr. Shandro’s spouse.

Despite the above conclusion, the hearing board found that the conduct did not rise to the level of ethics violations

While we conclude that the Citations were not made out, the Committee thought that Mr. Shandro’s conduct at the time of the events that give rise to the Citations was at times inappropriate. However, we find that the conduct did not rise to the level of conduct deserving of sanction. Mr. Shandro is not guilty on all three Citations.

Dissent

While I agree with the Majority that there is nothing inherently wrong with a lawyer approaching a neighbor (or anyone) to have a conversation, “even if it is emotional”, I do not consider Mr. Shandro’s conduct that day to be just a “conversation” with his neighbor as the Majority finds. I consider Mr. Shandro to have attended uninvited and unannounced at Dr. M.Z.’s residence, in an emotional state.  There was a plethora of options available to Mr. Shandro to resolve his concerns with Dr. M.Z. without attending at his house. Failure to appropriately consider those other options was unreasonable and inappropriate and is incompatible with the best interest of the public and negatively affects the public perception.

I am also particularly troubled by the fact that Dr. M.Z.’s children were present for at least some of Mr. Shandro’s attendance at Dr. M.Z.’s residence. Upon arrival at Dr. M.Z.’s residence and finding the children playing out front, Mr. Shandro still persisted upon continuing with his plan to confront Dr. M.Z. I am even more troubled by the undisputed fact of Mr. Shandro telling the children to stay inside while the conversation took place. This shows not only poor judgment, but in my opinion, crossed the line into inappropriate conduct on Mr. Shandro’s part.

I disagree with the Majority as to how the Sidewalk/Driveway Incident impacted Dr. M.Z. and his family. This aspect was not given sufficient weight or taken into great consideration by the Majority when assigning weight to what constitutes reasonable and appropriate conduct. The Majority does not find Mr. Shandro’s conduct to be “uncivil or discourteous” and the Majority goes so far as to conclude that there was nothing to suggest that conduct was threatening in any manner. The Majority fails to give sufficient weight to Dr. M.Z.’s testimony that he felt threatened and that his family was very upset after the Sidewalk/Driveway Incident. Dr. M.Z. testified he felt threatened and embarrassed because Mr. Shandro was his “ultimate boss” and felt that Mr. Shandro was acting in “some partial capacity as a lawyer.” To ignore such testimony would be dismissive of the impact Dr. M.Z. described.

I further part from the Majority in its finding that Mr. Shandro’s behaviour is somewhat justified because of the circumstances at the time for Mr. Shandro. The Majority states it was reasonable for Mr. Shandro to be “highly sensitive” especially given the ongoing situation involving threats against him and his family. I agree and acknowledge that Mr. Shandro at the time was facing safety concerns impacting him and his family. Even so, there was no justification or emergency for Mr. Shandro to engage Dr. M.Z. at his residence. The public’s trust and confidence in lawyers is based on the ability of lawyers to manage their behavior in highly stressful situations and circumstances. However, Mr. Shandro’s conduct during the Sidewalk/Driveway Incident, erodes public confidence in the legal profession and as such puts the legal profession into disrepute. In this case, even in the context of the ongoing events, Mr. Shandro’s behavior was improper.  

Red Deer Advocate covered the decision.(Mike Frisch)