The situation is not only unusual, it is downright bizarre.
A Supreme Court justice is charged with misconduct over events in Arizona in January. He resigned even before a public inquiry was held.
Why leave?
PHOTO FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA WEBSITE
Judge Russell Brown
“While my lawyer and I are confident that the complaint would ultimately have been dismissed, this continued delay is in no one’s interest – not the Court, not the public, not my family, not myself- even. So I decided that the common good would be best served by my retirement, so that a replacement judge could join the Court in time for its busy fall session. »
The problem is that all the evidence is now secret, the case closed.
The complaint against Judge Brown was filed on January 29 by a 31-year-old ex-US Marine, Jonathan Crump. Crump claims that an intoxicated Judge Brown harassed two women who were in his company, following them to their room at a hotel in Scottsdale, Arizona. Brown, nominated in 2015 by Stephen Harper, was returning from delivering a talk in honor of Louise Arbour, who was receiving an award. Crump admits hitting Judge Brown twice, but says it was because he was acting strange and threatening. Brown says the heavily intoxicated ex-Marine hit him without provocation.
Police, called to the scene, did not file charges against either Brown or Crump.
Crump’s statement is riddled with “glaring contradictions,” according to Brian Gover, attorney for Judge Brown. The man was drunk and belligerent, and if he called the police and filed a complaint, it was to “get ahead” and avoid being accused himself. According to Me Gover, the two young women posted jokes on social media about the evening – the cost of which was borne by the hotel. “I would like to personally thank the country of Canada for this unforgettable and free girls’ trip,” wrote one of them, before deleting her post. The other posted several humorous emojis to sum up the evening.
The attorney says the security cameras, the bartender, the security guard, the 911 call and a private investigation contradict Crump’s version.
It looks like a defense. Why resign before presenting it?
The judge has already been on forced leave since 1er February – leave reluctantly announced by the Supreme Court only on March 7. It will still be months before getting a decision.
It was only last week that a committee of five chief justices from across Canada, chaired by Justice Manon Savard of the Quebec Court of Appeal, ruled on the need for a public inquiry. Judge Brown was surely hoping that the complaint would be dismissed at this stage. He was going to have a disciplinary trial instead. If the complaint is brought against the judge, he can simply be blamed… or outright dismissed.
The mere fact of deciding to hold a public inquiry testifies to the seriousness of the charges and the quality of the evidence. There have been very few in Canada, and never against a Supreme Court judge.
But could it also be that, in the case of a Supreme Court judge, the Judicial Council wanted to be as rigorous as possible and try the case in public? Overzealous ?
We won’t know. Judge Brown’s resignation closes his disciplinary file with the Council. I asked on Monday for access to the report of the review committee, which decided on a public inquiry. Just to see the evidence in the file. Not possible. “While the council strives for transparency in its work, now that Judge Brown is no longer a judge, the council’s jurisdiction over the complaint against him has ended under the law,” the council replied. Director Johanna Laporte.
That’s not what I call transparency.
Whether or not he committed any misconduct, in any case, Justice Brown can be credited for not dragging things out. He did not imitate those few judges of other courts accused of misconduct who hung on for years at the expense of the taxpayer presenting ridiculous defenses and dishonoring justice until they were shown the inevitable door which was waiting.
But if, indeed, this accusation coming from Arizona is dishonest, we are faced with a result that is not acceptable. It is not an extraordinarily complicated matter. All the cumbersome steps of the complaint process (supposed to be reformed and simplified, if the Senate ends up adopting it), instead of protecting the judge, condemned him. In a court of 150 judges, like the Superior Court, you can do without a judge. But at nine, it’s more complicated, especially since the Supreme Court cannot sit at eight: an odd number is needed to avoid a tie vote. It therefore sits in groups of five or seven. And since it decides on major matters, it is imperative that it have full staff, representing all regions of Canada.
Chief Justice Wagner, moreover, expresses the wish that the Prime Minister deploy “all the care and diligence necessary to appoint a new judge of the Supreme Court of Canada as soon as possible”.
Haha! Good luck ! The Liberal government has shown itself to be inherently incapable of making simple appointments to the superior courts in an acceptable time frame. So ask Santa for something else as a gift for 2023, Chief Justice…
In the meantime, in this highly unusual case, the review report should be made public. Was there serious evidence of behavior unbecoming a “supreme” judge? We would like to be able to get an idea for ourselves, before everything is buried…