Facts: the Associate Chief Justice of Manitoba is involved in a scandal, in which her husband posted bondage sex pics of her on an internet site devoted to attracting Black men for sex (they are both White).
This racial fact is relevant, because the husband (also a lawyer) allegedly pressured a Black client of his into having sex with her - according to the client. No sex took place, but allegedly it went so far as the husband sending sexy emails of the wife to the client, giving the client a password to the website with sex pics of her on it, and arranging a meeting.
The client complained to the firm, the husband was resigned from his firm and paid out some cash to the client.
It is, so far, unclear how much she was involved in any of this. Obviously she knew her pics were being taken, and she was meeting Black guys. But it is at least possible that her husband was the one posting her pics, etc. without her knowledge.
The issue for debate is this: is the scandal her private business, or should she be made to resign?
The CBC canvassed some legal/ethics experts with names, genders anonymous before the story broke, and they more or less agreed she should go; in my firm, among the people with offices next to me, the same feeling prevails. Are they right?
Has this been actually proven in a formal sense, or is it simply at the level of an assertion by the client followed by a forced resignation by the husband to avoid scandal?
Presumably because the average Manitoban (Manitobite?) would feel queasy about having as a judge someone who posts hardcore porn videos of themselves online and “pressures” other people for sex.
I’m not familiar with Canadian judicial positions. When you say “be made to resign” are you referring to an impeachment process? Or criminal charges being made that would force resignation? Or simply public pressure?
By American standards, the situation certainly could bring about impeachment, since that is purely a political process. Likewise, public pressure might make it wise for her to resign.
I don’t see how what the judge did is unethical in any way. She didn’t use her judicial position for personal gain or give favorable rulings to those she was involved with.
Queasy how? Do you think that somehow hardcore porn interferes with her ability listen to cases and apply the law? How would it interfere?
And we don’t know that she had any involvement in the attempts to get the client to have sex with her. As far as we know, it seems to have all been done by the husband.
In principle, I agree with Bo that if Douglas had no knowledge of the guy being pressured, then I don’t see an ethical issue (although I think ITR is probably right that this might have been politically damaging had it come out before her appointment).
On the facts as presented, my gut reaction is that I find it somewhat hard to believe that, if the complainant’s story is true, Douglas would not have known that the man was a client of her husband. Certainly, authorities would need more than a gut reaction to proceed, of course.
Judges, Chief Justices and Associate Chief Justices are not elected in Canada. They are appointed, using a variety of methods, depending on level, and whether they are provincial or federal judges. In general, there is a professional body that reviews potential judges, and then makes recommendations to the appropriate Minister of Justice or Attorney General. The committee is usually composed of representatives from government, law societies, the Bar Association, other judges and the general public. Judges are chosen from the list of recommendations.
If she knew about the scandal and failed to report it on her disclosure, I would say she needs to go (if such a disclosure was required). If not, then I think she can stay, though I wouldn’t expect her to rise much in her position.
If it was simply that her husband had to resign from his job, because of an accusation… then why would she have a duty to report anything?
Were there actual charges against her husband, or were the accusations in any way proven?
If the husband actually did this, is it a crime, or is it simply something that went against his companies policies and was a firing offense? If he’d been selling Amway to clients and gotten fired, would this have hit the papers (I think not)
And really, what does her husband’s errors have to do with the ability of this judge to craft good decisions from the bench?
As I think about it, she may have had to undergo some security clearance procedure where she was asked “Is there anything in your background that someone could use to subject you to blackmail?” Variations of this question are standard in US background investigations. If she withheld knowledge of this information, that might be a violation of that process.
The judge has to answer, before being appointed, a detailed questionaire, in which they are supposed to disclose anything they have been involved in that might being the judiciary in disrepute.
She did not so disclose. Her position is that this is not something that could bring the judiciary oin disrepute, so she didn’t have to.
It has not been proved in a formal sense, but the husband has admitted to it and apologized (as well as resigning and apparently paying money to the client).
As far as I know, it has not been pursued as a matter of a formal ethics violation before the Manitoba Law Society.
As far as I know, it is up to the relevant (Provincial or Federal) government to remove a judge. This would be an important decision that would probably ultimately be made by the Premier of a Province or the Prime Minister. It would definitely be a Big Deal.
Judges currently must retire at 75, which is (IMO) a good idea.