An opinion article by an Ottawa justice of the peace that was critical of the bail system was one-sided, insulting and did not accurately portray the work of Crown attorneys, the former president of the provincial prosecutors’ association said Wednesday.

Kate Matthews, who led the Ontario Crown Attorneys’ Association from 2014 to 2017, was testifying at the Toronto discipline hearing for justice of the peace Julie Lauzon. The association is one of the complainants in the case against Lauzon at the Justices of the Peace Review Council, the independent body that investigates and disciplines JPs.

Lauzon, appointed to the bench in 2011, is facing allegations of judicial misconduct for an opinion article published in the National Post in 2016. It’s alleged she lacked impartiality, misused “the power and prestige of her judicial office” by making out-of-court statements in the media, and displayed a reasonable apprehension of bias toward prosecutors.

Lauzon was especially critical of Crown attorneys in her piece, saying she often faced pushback when questioning prosecutors about certain conditions they wanted to impose on an accused person before they were released.

She wrote of situations in bail court where “the law goes out the window, and cynicism and bullying kicks in.” Lauzon described a Crown attorney turning his back on her in court and telling defence lawyers “that all deals were off the table as long as I was presiding,” while she said she had another prosecutor scream at her “and basically throw a temper tantrum after I questioned certain conditions.”

Matthews testified Wednesday that colleagues from across the province reached out to her and fellow association board members the day Lauzon’s article was published, and described their reactions as dismay, frustration and outrage.

“The article does not accurately and fairly capture the role of an assistant Crown attorney in the bail courts, the pressures they are under, the factors that go into decisions,” Matthews said. “It seemed to lay the blame for every failing in bail courts at the feet of Crown attorneys.”

Matthews, who has been a Crown attorney in Toronto for 20 years, said prosecutors are not immune to criticism and know there are problems in the bail system. But she said Lauzon’s piece “completely deflated” prosecutors and that it was “terribly insulting” to read Lauzon stating the law goes out the window in bail court.

Matthews said Crown attorneys have to juggle many interests when appearing in bail court, including the interests of public safety and of the accused person. She said a lack of resources, including courtroom space, have added to the difficulties in dealing with bail hearings in a timely way.

Lauzon has previously testified that she does not regret writing the op-ed, feeling it was her only way of drawing public attention to what she felt were long-standing problems in the bail system.

She said she felt Crown attorneys were sometimes proposing too many conditions — which can include a curfew or an order to abstain from alcohol — so that an accused person could be released. She testified that when she would question the necessity of some conditions, Crown attorneys would withdraw their consent to the accused person being released.

Justices of the peace, who earn about $132,000 a year, are appointed by the provincial government. Clad in black robes and green sashes, they sign off on search warrants, and preside over bail hearings and in provincial offences court, which deals with non-criminal charges.

Lauzon’s hearing is expected to wrap up this week.