Top court won’t review case sparked by justice of the peace’s critique of bail system

OTTAWA — The Supreme Court of Canada will not review a ruling that allowed a justice of the peace to remain on the bench after she wrote a column critical of the bail system and the conduct of some Crown prosecutors.

A hearing panel established by the Justices of the Peace Review Council recommended Julie Lauzon be removed from her position after the National Post column prompted complaints from several senior Crown attorneys.

The panel found that Lauzon showed “a reasonable apprehension of bias, if not actual bias” against Crown prosecutors. 

Lauzon challenged the decision in court, arguing the panel was not sufficiently respectful of her Charter-protected right of freedom of expression as an independent judicial officer.

She was initially unsuccessful, but the Ontario Court of Appeal pointed to errors in the proceedings and downgraded Lauzon’s punishment to a reprimand and 30-day suspension without pay.

The Court of Appeal found Lauzon was deeply committed to improvement of the justice system, adding that the notion she is biased against Crown prosecutors “cannot be sustained on the evidence.”

The appeal court concluded Lauzon’s removal from office would be grossly disproportionate to the nature, extent and seriousness of her misconduct.

Following its usual custom, the Supreme Court gave no reasons Thursday for refusing to hear the review council’s appeal.

Lauzon’s lawyer, Lawrence Greenspon, said while his client is pleased that the outcome allows her to continue as a justice of the peace, she believes she should never have been disciplined at all.

Greenspon said when a judicial officer is “speaking out and speaking truth about the system that they are very much a part of, to then be disciplined for that is a continuing concern.”

This report by The Canadian Press was first published May 9, 2024.

The Canadian Press