A justice of the peace kicked out of her courtroom for the past three years after she wrote a newspaper article calling bail hearings “a disgrace” was treated unjustly, the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled on Thursday.
The decision in the case of Julie Lauzon, who penned a 2016 cri de coeur – “I can no longer call it a court of law” – clears the way for judges and justices of the peace to speak publicly about problems in the justice system.
“Her Worship Julie Lauzon should be sitting as a justice of the peace. That she is not sitting is an injustice to be remedied,” Justice Peter Lauwers began in his 3-0 ruling, supported by Justice Lois Roberts and Justice Bradley Miller.
He added: “The record discloses that JP Lauzon is deeply committed to the improvement of the system of justice.”
A disciplinary body, the Justices of the Peace Review Council, heard complaints in 2018 brought by three groups of Crown prosecutors. In 2020, it recommended her dismissal from the post, which pays more than $170,000 a year. A senior judge later put her on unassigned status, while she continued to be paid. A lower court declined to review the decision.
The Ontario Court of Appeal was careful not to throw the door wide open to judicial speech. It ordered a 30-day suspension without pay and a reprimand for Ms. Lauzon, saying that the Justices of the Peace Review Council made a reasonable decision three years ago when it found she had spoken without caution or restraint.
But the disciplinary body went too far, the appeal court said, when two of the three members who heard her case recommended she be fired. The disciplinary body said her article and subsequent behaviour during a misconduct hearing showed her to be biased against Crown prosecutors.
There was no evidence of actual bias, or even the appearance of bias, the appeal court said.
“These are very strong words, no doubt,” Justice Lauwers wrote of Ms. Lauzon’s use of “disgrace” and other terms, “but these words signal JP Lauzon’s righteous anger at a deplorable state of affairs in bail court.”
The court stressed the importance of a judge’s independence, and freedom of speech, and quoted the late Supreme Court of Canada justice John Sopinka: If “a matter is troubling a judge and relates to the work of the court, a public discussion will often serve not only to clear the air, but will also result in a happier, more effective judge.”
The court went so far as to suggest the article may have played a role in subsequent Supreme Court rulings on bail, establishing the granting of bail as the default position in Canada.
The appeal ruling tells judges and justices of the peace that “their ability to express themselves and speak is paramount and it’s constitutionally protected,” said Lawrence Greenspon, co-counsel for Ms. Lauzon with administrative-law specialist Paul Daly.
“If and when they do so, they have to do it in a way that is consistent with their office.”
Mr. Greenspon said he expects his client to return to her duties as a justice of the peace, adding that he made it clear to the appeal court that she would not be apologizing for her article.
Ms. Lauzon said in her article that prosecutors and defence lawyers were presenting her with conditions of release as if they were a fait accompli. But people in jail will agree to “just about anything to regain freedom,” she wrote, so she insists on probing whether the conditions are necessary.
She said she has had a prosecutor turn his back on her and tell defence lawyers all deals were off when she was presiding. She also said she had a prosecutor scream at her and throw a “temper tantrum” after she asked questions.
The Ontario Crown Attorneys’ Association, one of the groups that brought the complaint, said it did not have anyone available to comment on Thursday.
Sean Fine