It was meant as a joke, but would prove to be the biggest mistake and regret of his judicial career.

Ontario Court Justice Bernd Zabel found himself on the witness stand Wednesday at a discipline hearing sparked by his decision to wear a pro-Donald Trump “Make America Great Again” red ball cap to court the day after the U.S. election last year.

He admitted that his actions constituted judicial misconduct, but emphatically denied that he is a supporter of Trump, or shares the bigoted views that have been associated with the U.S. president. He also made clear that he’s never met the man.

“I find it very difficult to find the words to express my profound regret for what I did that day,” said Zabel, appointed to the bench in Hamilton in 1990. “The man depicted in those complaints is not me. I'm not a racist. I'm not a bigot. I'm not a misogynist.”

A four-member discipline panel of the Ontario Judicial Council, chaired by Court of Appeal Justice Robert Sharpe, was told the council received 81 complaints into Zabel’s conduct.

Many of the complainants expressed concern that his actions would leave individuals from marginalized communities wondering if they could get a fair hearing before Zabel.

“Any display of political or ideological affiliation while presiding in a court proceeding is antithetical to the modern and informed view of the role of the judiciary,” wrote the president of the Criminal Lawyers’ Association, Anthony Moustacalis, in a complaint.

“The fact that the particular politic in issue is perceived by some members of the public to be inconsistent with values and principles that are the bedrock of the administration of criminal justice in Canada only aggravates the situation.”

With police officers stationed outside the hearing room, the panel heard that Zabel purchased five of the hats on Amazon in June 2016 as “historical memorabilia” when it became clear that Trump would clinch the Republican nomination for president.

He gave four to friends, and kept the fifth for himself and wore it briefly in the judges’ common room, where he said his colleagues laughed.

After having had only a few hours of sleep following Trump’s surprise win as president, Zabel made his way into courtroom 208 at the Hamilton courthouse on Nov. 9, wearing the hat “to lighten the proceedings.”

But before going down in the elevator, he ran into his colleague, Justice Marjoh Agro, who testified at the discipline hearing Wednesday that she said to him: “Are you out of your mind?”

“I remember the day all too well because frankly, I regret not ripping that hat off his head,” Agro testified, looking directly at Zabel, seated with his lawyers.

Zabel said he regretted not taking Agro’s words to heart before going into the courtroom. The panel heard he wore the hat for about a minute in the courtroom, eliciting laughter from lawyers, and then placed it on the dais in front of him. Zabel said he took it back up to his chambers at the morning break.

Presenting counsel Linda Rothstein highlighted that while Zabel did apologize in court at the earliest opportunity on Nov. 15 — where he said he is not a Trump supporter and wore the hat as an attempt at humour — she said the apology did not capture all of his conduct.

Unbeknownst to the public at the time was that Zabel had said in court at the end of the day on Nov. 9 to a Crown attorney: “Brief appearance with the hat. Pissed off the rest of the judges because they all voted for Hillary, so I was the only Trump supporter up there, but that’s OK.”

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

The remarks came to light after the Toronto Star obtained a transcript in December.

“They weren't considered words,” Zabel said of the remarks, saying he didn’t realize the court’s audio recorder was still on because he thought court had ended for the day, but nevertheless said he agreed the remarks were inappropriate.

He clarified Wednesday that he never meant to indicate that the judges voted for Hillary Clinton — they are Canadian citizens, after all — or suggest that he had voted for Trump. What he meant to say was that he was the only judge who had predicted that Trump would win over Clinton, and he was “gloating” about it.

Zabel also said he believed his Nov. 15 apology captured all of his words and actions on Nov. 9. Accompanied by police officers, he was whisked away past the media after Wednesday’s proceedings down an elevator to the parking garage where he left in a tinted-window vehicle.

The panel reserved its decision in the case. Possible sanctions include a warning, a formal reprimand, an order to receive further education, paid or unpaid suspension, or a recommendation to the attorney general that Zabel be fired.

His lawyers are pushing for a warning or formal reprimand, or if the panel wishes to go with a more serious sanction, they suggested he forego his paid holiday rather than be suspended.

That’s because the panel heard from Justice Agro that the decision to pull Zabel off of cases last December pending the outcome of the discipline proceedings has “caused havoc” at an already understaffed courthouse.

She said matters have had to be rescheduled, and a trial that Zabel had been presiding over before he was temporarily removed is now at risk of being tossed due to delay.

“He's not the only one that's paid a penalty,” said Agro, who has known Zabel for 40 years and said she would have no concerns with Zabel coming back to work.

More than 60 reference letters were presented to the panel from judges, lawyers, courthouse staff and members of the public, all praising Zabel’s work ethic, impartiality, and fairness toward everyone in the courtroom.

A retired Crown attorney, Lidia Narozniak, testified on his behalf, saying Zabel was one of her “favourite judges” and she always felt like she could get a fair hearing before him with cases involving vulnerable victims.

“Justice Zabel is an exceptional judge who made a terrible mistake,” said his lawyer, Giulia Gambacorta. “What happened to Justice Zabel reminds us that judges are fallible too.”

Read more about: