A survey of 503 citizens. It was through this unusual means that real estate developer Jean-François Malo pleaded that he could not be tried by a judge of the Court of Quebec. Two magistrates rejected Tuesday the extraordinary appeals of the man accused of having attempted to assassinate a lawyer from Desjardins, who has since become a judge.
Jean-François Malo’s new trial is set to begin Wednesday at the Longueuil courthouse with the hearing of new motions. According to the Crown’s theory, Malo hired two henchmen to kill lawyer Nicholas Daudelin in March 2020. The shooters opened fire on Mr. Daudelin’s residence, who was injured.
The first trial ended abruptly after three weeks when Judge Christian Jarry recused himself last April. The judge explained that he had discovered a link between a witness and him and his relatives. To avoid any appearance of bias, he recused himself.
His full reasons were then sealed. A decision upheld by Justice Dannie Leblanc. The Malo camp thus addressed the Superior Court as part of two extraordinary appeals (writs of certiorari) in order to have access to the full reasons under seal.
Superior Court Justice Éliane B. Perreault rejected the motion Tuesday at the Montreal courthouse. She recalled that Justice Leblanc had offered the defence the opportunity to view the reasons. However, the defence refused, since it would not be able to review the reasons with disclosure motions.
In another decision released Tuesday, Superior Court Justice Marc David rejected the accused’s motion for a stay. The defence argued that none of the 333 judges of the Court of Quebec could hear the trial because of their bias, since the complainant is their colleague. Nicholas Daudelin was appointed a judge to the Court of Quebec in January 2024.
According to the defence, such a situation would undermine public confidence. To justify this position, the defence conducted a survey of 503 respondents who were asked this question: “Do you believe that a judge of the Court of Quebec should hear a case where the main witness is a judge of the Court of Quebec, who is therefore a colleague of the same Court, when he will have to rule on his credibility as well as that of the accused?”
Such a survey corresponds to a form of “popular justice” and cannot be upheld, concluded Judge David. “Any judicial decision has an interest in keeping itself far from popular public opinion,” ruled the Superior Court judge.
Judge David defended the integrity of the judges of the Court of Quebec.
“Without a doubt, a judge of the Court of Quebec will ensure that a trial is held in accordance with the rules of the art and in compliance with the rights of the applicant. This trial will be held before an independent and impartial forum that is the Court of Quebec with its 333 judges dedicated to the administration of fair justice for all. […] “A reasonable person could not conclude otherwise,” concluded Judge David.