Winnipeg Free Press

Winnipeg Free Press (Newspaper) - June 26, 2012, Winnipeg, Manitoba C M Y K PAGE B1 JULY 19 - 22, 2012 M O R R I S , M A N I T O B A To l l F r e e : 1 - 8 6 6 - 6 5 7 - 4 7 4 1 w w w . m a n i t o b a s t a m p e d e . c a MANITOBA'S ONLY PRO RODEO 204- 831- 2022 Collision & Glass CITY & BUSINESS CITY EDITOR: PAUL SAMYN 697- 7292 city. desk@ freepress. mb. ca I winnipegfreepress. com TUESDAY, JUNE 26, 2012 B 1 A LEX Chapman, bloodied but unbowed, had his day in court Monday as his lawyer argued he has a right to legal standing in the Canadian Judicial Council's inquiry into Justice Lori Douglas's future on the bench. The self- proclaimed victim would also like his legal fees covered, thank you very much. Toronto lawyer Rocco Galati told the inquiry his client Chapman now has a " negative net worth," has been unemployed since merrily breaking a confidentiality agreement in 2010 and has earned only $ 1,500 in " menial jobs" since publicly reneging on a 2003 deal with Douglas's husband, Jack King. That sweet arrangement had Chapman cashing a $ 25,000 cheque in exchange for permanently shutting his yap. Instead, he went public in 2010 with claims King tried to arrange a sexual encounter between the now- blushing Chapman and his missus while acting as the former's divorce lawyer. King sent Chapman photos of Douglas in bondage, apparently to sweeten the deal. After nursing hurt feelings for seven years, Chapman leaked the nudie shots to the media. He also filed a $ 67- million lawsuit against the couple and the law firm where they worked. Greed doesn't always pay. For reneging, Chapman has been ordered to pay back the $ 25,000 and cover King's legal fees, expected to be in the $ 10,000 range. This should have been a footnote to a quickly resolved private matter. But a witch hunt erupted when Chapman leapt from the shadows. Lori Douglas was pilloried for something she didn't do. She didn't send the pictures, didn't know they were being sent and has been humiliated by her husband's actions. Her mistake was trusting her husband. She has been on leave from her job as associate chief justice of the family division of the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench since August 2010. The CJC launched their inquiry last November. The council's concerns include the couple's alleged sexual harassment of Chapman, Douglas's failure to disclose the issue to the judicial selection committee in 2005, and her ability to serve as a judge, given the existence of the photos. So there was Alex Chapman in the front row and Rocco Galati arguing the inquiry will devolve into a " he- says- she- says" debate, one that cannot possibly be resolved by the existing independent counsel to the inquiry. He suggested Chapman has a " direct and substantial" interest in the proceedings and should have a voice. Of course he's got an interest, given it's his greed that got the ball rolling. Galati claimed Chapman's charter rights would be violated if he is not given standing. If he is, Chapman would be allowed to cross- examine witnesses if they make negative statements about him, his lawyer said. In other words, he could cross- examine Lori Douglas, a woman who has made no claims against him but disputes his now- public allegations against her. Galati sought a three- week delay to prepare a case if his request is granted. Independent counsel Guy Pratte dismissed Galati's submission. The report of the committee is focused on Lori Douglas, he said, and its report will have nothing to do with Chapman. It cannot assign blame to him, although some of us in the cheap seats think that's a pity. Lori Douglas has the right to counsel at the hearing because it is her behaviour that is under scrutiny. If Galati was to be believed, Pratte argued, any time you felt your reputation was at stake you could seek intervener status at a hearing. Galati and Chapman will hear the committee's decision Tuesday. Thankfully, the Lori Douglas circus was denied an extra ring Monday when a local blogger's request for standing was unanimously dismissed. The blogger, who should learn no worthy sentence begins with the words " I believe it behooves... " proved committee chairwoman Catherine Fraser is possessed of immaculate manners and infinite patience. In a lesser setting, the blogger would have been yanked out of the room with a giant hook. The committee meets again today. Let's hope it quickly resolves the pillorying of Lori Douglas without any more tomato- tossers trying to join the party. lindor. reynolds@ freepress. mb. ca A MAN accusing one of the province's top judges of sexual harassment finds out today not only if he'll be granted standing in her disciplinary hearing but also if the federal government will pay for his legal representation. Alex Chapman originally brought a complaint against Associate Chief Justice Lori Douglas, which led to the hearing, and he'll learn a Canadian Judicial Council inquiry committee's decision in court today. The committee is looking into Douglas's conduct to determine if she should retain her status as a justice. Chapman claims Douglas's husband showed him sexually explicit photos of her and asked him to have sex with her. But Douglas has said she did nothing wrong and her husband acted without her knowledge. Toronto lawyer Rocco Galati argued Chapman needs to have his own lawyer instead of relying on the committee's independent counsel. " Alex Chapman has a direct and tangential interest in this proceeding," Galati said. " I'm not impugning the role of the independent counsel, but it doesn't work where you have a complainant and judge saying each is lying. " If he doesn't get standing then... who out there would ever get standing?" Galati also asked for funding from the inquiry. He said Chapman has virtually no income since losing his job with an insurance company in 2010. But Guy Pratte, the committee's independent counsel, and Douglas's lawyer, Molly Reynolds, argued Monday Chapman shouldn't be granted standing, but should remain as one of the committee's witnesses. " There is no room for a complainant... to complement the job of independent counsel," Pratte said. " He seeks to bring forward no new facts." Reynolds said the inquiry committee is looking into the conduct of Douglas and she is the only one who could suffer any ramifications out of the hearings, not Chapman. " To give Mr. Chapman standing would be to utterly change the process," she said. " It would create an adversarial system. it's an attempt to abuse the CJC process." The inquiry committee will determine whether Douglas, who is the associate chief justice of the family division of the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, has a future as a judge. She has been on leave since the allegations became known in 2010. The allegations suggest Douglas failed to disclose all relevant facts when she was being considered for the bench, that she and her husband - lawyer Jack King - sexually harassed Chapman, pressuring the client to have sex with her and that she can no longer function as a judge because of the public availability of the nude photos. In 2010, Alex Chapman went public with allegations he was paid $ 25,000 to keep quiet about images of Douglas he was sent and requests for him to engage in sexual activity with her. The incidents were alleged to have happened while King was representing Chapman in a divorce trial in 2003. In a recent filing with the CJC, Douglas denied the allegations, stating her husband's actions victimized her, she had no dealings with Chapman and the entire Manitoba legal community was aware of the sordid affair before she was appointed to the bench. Also Monday, the inquiry committee unanimously rejected applications by Cher Hazen and blogger Clare Pieuk, saying neither had a personal interest in the matter and didn't bring any expertise in the matter to the hearing. Hazen said she wanted to be part of the inquiry because she is worried Douglas's alleged personal behaviour affected her child- custody hearing. Pieuk argued he should be given standing to represent the public because " if there is no public intervener, is it really a public inquiry?" But the committee told him as a blogger member of the media he was welcome to sit in the public courtroom, but was not to be granted standing. On Sunday, the inquiry committee said discs containing nude photos of Douglas and other women will be considered as a separate complaint against the judge. The inquiry committee said while accepting the discs, their contents will not be made public until the judges on the committee have had a chance to review the photos and decide whether they should be released. Douglas had objected to the inclusion of the discs in the process. The committee said the discs are relevant to three of the four allegations against Douglas. - with files from The Canadian Press kevin. rollason@ freepress. mb. ca THE Canadian Judicial Council is the body tasked with overseeing the conduct of more than 1,100 federally appointed judges. The chief justice of Canada chairs the council. There are 38 other members of the council, including the chief and associate chief justices of every superior court, ( including the Court of Queen's Bench in Manitoba), as well as the chief justice of the Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada. When the council receives a complaint, a member of the council reviews it and decides if it warrants further consideration. Mainly this determines if the complaint falls within the mandate of the Canadian Judicial Council. The council does not review complaints about judicial decisions, rather it is there to review the conduct of judges. A panel of five judges from the council is selected to review a complaint and decide if there is merit to the complaint. This panel can decide to dismiss the complaint, request the judge apologize or recommend a full public inquiry be held. The latter is what has happened in the Douglas case. It is only the ninth time since the council was created 40 years ago a public inquiry was convened. The inquiry will determine whether the CJC should recommend Douglas be removed from the bench. If that happens, the CJC will recommend to Parliament the judge be removed from the bench. Parliament is the only body that actually has the power to remove a federally appointed judge. A recommendation for removal from the bench has only happened once before in Canada. In one other instance, a judge stepped down before such a recommendation could be made. Appeal for role in inquiry an insult to true victim LINDOR REYNOLDS At least blogger's bid was politely dismissed Decision on standing due today The scope of the council's authority Man accusing high- profile justice of harassment also to get word on expenses By Kevin Rollason ' If he doesn't get standing then... who out there would ever get standing?' - Alex Chapman's lawyer Rocco Galai ' There is no room for a complainant... to complement the job of independent counsel' - independent counsel Guy Pratte COLE BREILAND / WINNIPEG FREE PRESS Alex Chapman: reneged on confidentiality deal B_ 01_ Jun- 26- 12_ FP_ 01. indd B1 6/ 25/ 12 10: 10: 48 PM ;