An Ottawa justice of the peace said this week she stands by an opinion article in which she criticized Crown attorneys and labelled bail court a “disgrace.”

That piece, published in The National Post in 2016, is at the centre of an ongoing discipline hearing in the case of JP Julie Lauzon. She testified at the Toronto hearing this week that she felt she had no other option but to write the piece, saying she wanted the public to be aware of serious problems in the bail system.

“It’s not good enough to accept there are issues in this court. This was my attempt to fix it — once and for all, that maybe it’s time the public knew because ultimately we are serving the public,” Lauzon said on the stand.

“I had nothing to gain personally by writing that article, as we can see here today. I had everything to lose.”

The discipline hearing is taking place before a three-member panel of the Justices of the Peace Review Council, the independent body that investigates and disciplines JPs.

Lauzon is facing allegations that 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.

In her 2016 opinion piece, Lauzon wrote that she faced difficulties from Crown attorneys at the Ottawa courthouse when she questioned conditions that were to be imposed on a person’s release.

“Between forced, rushed video appearances, a lack of respect for the JP bench and the absence of the rule of law in this court, I can no longer call it a court of law. It is a disgrace,” she wrote. “I am there to administer justice. It is not my job as a JP to sign off on release documents that are unlawful.”

Lauzon also wrote of 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.”

Justices of the peace are appointed by the provincial government and earn approximately $132,000 a year. Clad in black robes and green sashes, they preside over bail hearings and cases dealing with non-criminal matters known as provincial offences, as well as sign off on search warrants.

JPs from other jurisdictions in Ontario testified for the defence this week, saying they also used to get pushback and rude behaviour from Crown attorneys when they questioned certain bail conditions, which can include a curfew for the accused person or an order to abstain from alcohol.

“I thought it was a breath of fresh air,” testified justice of the peace Maxine Coopersmith, who typically presides in Durham region, of Lauzon’s article. “I thought ‘Gee, we’re not alone, there are places that are even worse than what we have here.’”

“Whether or not it was appropriate, it may have advanced where bail is now,” testified Toronto JP Rhonda Roffey.

In 2017, a year after Lauzon’s piece was published, the Ontario government implemented a new bail policy for Crown attorneys, reminding them to only request bail conditions that are “necessary and required in the interests of the accused and the safety and security of the victim or public and related to the commission of the offence.”

Former attorney general Yasir Naqvi said at the time that people arrested for violating bail conditions that had no connection to their alleged criminal offence were clogging up the courts.

Presenting counsel Ian Smith, the external lawyer hired by the review council to present the case against Lauzon, charged during cross-examination that her piece was nothing short of a one-sided, unfair and full-on attack on the integrity and reputation of Crown attorneys — an airing of the Ottawa courthouse’s “dirty laundry.”

Cross-examination was tense at times, with Lauzon telling Smith he reminded her of some of the Crown attorneys who she said had behaved badly in her courtroom. She denied the opinion piece was an attack, pointing out repeatedly that she never named anyone in the article, but that she needed to “state the facts.”

“I wanted people to know that the law in certain bail courts was not being followed,” she testified. “You make it sound like I wanted to nail the Crowns to the wall. The Crowns were a big part of the problem.”

Smith questioned Lauzon on her use of certain words including “bullying,” “cynicism” and “disgrace” in her op-ed, asking her if such language was temperate.

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

“That language was necessary in the circumstances,” she said, maintaining throughout cross-examination that she would not have changed a thing about the piece.

“It was time to speak out. This matter had to be put out there and addressed. The language had to be clear enough so that it would get a reaction. I needed people to take this seriously, to look at it, to fix it.”

The hearing will resume in October.

Read more about: