A long-time Toronto justice of the peace has been found guilty of judicial misconduct for repeatedly inserting himself into an assault case in which his friend-turned-partner was the alleged victim.

Tom Foulds, appointed to the bench in 1999, “exploited his position as justice of the peace,” according to a 57-page decision from a hearing panel of the Justices of the Peace Review Council, released Thursday.

“The hearing panel concludes that, on any objective assessment, His Worship’s repeated acts of misconduct resulted in the administration of justice being brought into disrepute,” says the decision.

The panel has now adjourned until March 23 to decide on Foulds’ fate, which could include paid or unpaid suspension, or a recommendation to the attorney general that Foulds be fired.

The criminal case in question relates to Foulds’ friend (and later partner), identified as AA due to a publication ban, who alleged she was assaulted by BB. The charges against BB were later stayed by the Crown.

Foulds, who normally presides at Old City Hall but is currently not presiding over cases, was found to have signed what is known as the “information” in 2014 laying out the charges against BB, despite knowing both BB and AA.

The three-member hearing panel — comprising a judge, a justice of the peace and a community member — rejected Foulds’ statement that he was not fully aware at the time that the information related to AA and BB. The panel noted that Foulds had even attended the police station a few days earlier with AA when she reported her accusation against BB.

“The hearing panel finds that Justice of the Peace Foulds intentionally abused the authority of his office when he signed the information that commenced criminal process against BB in circumstances where he knew that he was in an obvious conflict of interest,” the panel said.

The panel found that Foulds later told a Crown attorney, Michael Callaghan, that he had signed the information and that he “was aware that he should not have done so.” The original information was then withdrawn and a new one sworn before a different justice.

The panel found Foulds’ actions regarding the information were motivated by “animus” toward BB.

“This animus is concluded to have been based on a desire to advance the criminal prosecution against BB while ensuring that BB was aware of His Worship’s involvement and interest in that criminal prosecution,” the panel said.

Foulds was also found to have tried to assert “some influence” on the proceeding involving BB, by virtue of the office he held, as he asked Crown attorneys about the case on more than one occasion, while they tried to brush him away.

“A member of the public would not have the opportunity to access the Crown attorney in a similar way or any means of communicating in like fashion,” the panel said.

“The hearing panel concludes that His Worship intentionally exploited a special relationship that he enjoyed with the police and Crown counsel by virtue of the position he holds as a judicial officer and that this position was exploited in order to further his own personal interests as those interests related to AA, a person of significance in his life.”

Finally, Foulds was called out for signing a subpoena requiring AA to attend BB’s trial, even though by this point he and AA were in a romantic relationship and living together.

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

The hearing panel said it would “not be unreasonable to conclude” that Foulds’ conduct had an “aggravating influence” on BB’s legal fees, because at one point the defence made a third-party records application to obtain communications between AA and Foulds.

This is not the first time that Foulds has faced discipline. In 2013, he was slapped with a seven-day suspension without pay for interfering with a health inspection of a close friend’s restaurant.