It sounds like a movie script.
A renowned judge, on a trip to Arizona to deliver a speech honoring an illustrious magistrate – now retired – is beaten up by a former US Marine.
We later learn that the altercation could be the result of a kiss and touching without consent on the part of the judge, of which two women were allegedly victims. At least that’s what a mother and daughter, who were in the company of the former soldier, maintain.
The main interested party categorically denies the allegations. But his brilliant career still finds himself on hold as we try to shed light on what happened.
It sounds like a movie, then, but if you’ve been following recent news about the Supreme Court of Canada, you know it all really happened.
The judge in question is called Russell Brown. He’s 57 and has served on the nation’s highest court since being named there by Prime Minister Stephen Harper in 2015.
And this case is currently upsetting the delicate balance that usually reigns in the Supreme Court. Among other things because, for an indefinite period, the court finds itself with eight judges rather than nine.
There is no point in being overly alarmed. This is not an unprecedented situation. This happened, for example, a few years ago when the candidacy of Judge Marc Nadon (also appointed by Stephen Harper) was challenged and then invalidated.
Judgments can be given to seven judges rather than nine. It’s not a rare thing either. The court quorum is reached with five judges. It could even be four judges “with the agreement of the parties involved”, it is specified in the Supreme Court Act.
The absence of a judge therefore does not compromise the activities of the court. But it is obviously easier to organize the work of the Supreme Court when all the judges are available.
We can also believe that a prolonged absence of Judge Brown will be deplored by those who consider that he represents an important voice for the autonomy of the provinces, for example. Or by those who do not like the idea of seeing the court deprived of one of its most conservative judges.
But the most serious issue that the court could face is the question of trust in it, in connection with the current controversy.
Judge Brown is of course presumed innocent. But the nature of the allegations concerning this magistrate is already, in itself, problematic.
Impeccable conduct is expected from judges. And the decision that will be rendered by the Canadian Judicial Council – which is currently considering this case – will be of paramount importance.
“Judges must strive to have a conduct that earns them the respect of the public and they must cultivate an image of integrity, impartiality and good judgment”, in court or out of court, specifies one in the document of the Canadian Judicial Council which dictates the principles of judicial ethics.
Allow us, moreover, to deplore the lack of transparency shown so far on this subject, both on the part of the tribunal and that of the Canadian Judicial Council.
The filing of the complaint against Judge Brown dates back to the end of January, but (too meager) details were not offered until the beginning of March.
Should we remember that opacity is not a guarantee of legitimacy for the court, quite the contrary?
It is important not only that the current process be as fair and equitable as it is quick, but that we find ways to make it as transparent as possible.
The reputation of the highest court in the land is at stake.