On The Radio

The Quebec Disciplinary Council has imposed a fine for comments made by the attorney in a radio interview

Mr. Jean-Marc Fradette, lawyer in the Saguenay/Lac-Saint-Jean section and regularly registered on the Roll of the Bar Association, committed an act derogatory to the honor and dignity of the Bar, namely that he:

1.    Saguenay, on or around October 12, 2021, during a radio interview on the program Debout la planète on the station Planète radio 104.5 in Alma, publicly stated that the investigator, during the interrogation of his client Y. T., said: “(…) what you are accused of is so serious that you should normally think about committing suicide and that we say it five or six times (…)”, while the respondent knew or should have known that this statement was false and/or inaccurate, thus contravening the provisions of articles 4 and 19 of the Code of Ethics of Lawyers .

Thus making himself liable to the sanctions provided for in article 156 of the Professional Code

Police witness

Mr. Gauthier has been a police officer with the Sûreté du Québec for 26 years and has been team leader of the Organized Crime Squad since February 2024. During 2020, he arrested Mr. Yvan Truchon, the respondent’s client.

On October 12, 2021, he was informed of the interview given by the respondent to a radio program and which was the subject of the offense of which the respondent was found guilty. Mr. Gauthier stated that the statements made by the respondent included falsehoods, that they attacked his integrity and credibility, and that the respondent reported statements he did not make. He felt anger, incomprehension, and injustice.

Regarding his comments made during Mr. Truchon’s interrogation, Mr. Gauthier states that he was questioning him about his intention to take action, emphasizing that at no time did he suggest that he commit suicide.

He wonders why someone would allow himself to use the power of the media to attack in public an honest person who is doing his job.

Mr. Gauthier emphasized that he had experienced an injustice, since the respondent, by spreading falsehoods, was informed that the Sûreté du Québec or the Director of Criminal and Penal Prosecutions would not intervene. He mentioned that at the time of the hearing he still felt a great deal of bitterness and anger following the respondent’s comments.

He reports that the respondent’s statements caused several people, as well as colleagues and friends, to contact him to inquire about his condition. Moreover, acquaintances asked him the reasons for the statements attributed to him by the respondent. He adds that his days could begin with questions on this subject raised by third parties he met.

Respondent

The respondent argues that he was right to warn the public that the police can act incorrectly, while conceding that he could have done so differently, or said so differently and that the objective was noble and necessary in a free and democratic society in order to inform the public.

Sanction

All things considered, based on the criteria for individualizing the sanction, the various objective and subjective factors specific to the respondent, his high risk of reoffending, his disciplinary history, the applicable precedents and the principle of grading sanctions, the Council imposes a fine of $10,000 on the respondent.