New allegations against Manitoba judge

A Winnipeg woman has complained to the Canadian Judicial Council regarding the conduct of Justice Lori Douglas.

The complainant alleges that pictures of Justice Douglas having an aspect of bondage and sado-masochism raise a reasonable apprehension of bias in proceedings in which she was involved.

The woman applied for a prevention order against her estranged husband.  Justice Douglas heard the motion, and refused to grant the order.  Instead, Justice Douglas issued a no-contact order that applied to both parties.

The Winnipeg Free Press’s account describes the portion of the transcript involved as follows:

According to a court transcript, Douglas said she was “not overly persuaded by Dr. Shane.”

“I have read Dr. Shane’s reports many a time, including this time and on another occasion and with exactly the same diagnosis with about as much evidence,” Douglas said.

The woman’s lawyer objected, telling Douglas there was no other evidence before the court to contradict what Shane had found.

“That is the problem then, isn’t it? It’s your client’s assertion and that’s all,” said Douglas.

Given the controversy presently surrounding Justice Douglas, that exchange can be seen in two ways: On the one hand, it might be as the complainant suggests; namely, that Justice Douglas is minimizing the actions of the estranged husband in the proceeding.  He was, after all, an admitted sex addict interested in bondage and sado-masochism who had been disciplined by the Law Society of Alberta for sexually harassing two women with whom he worked at a law firm.

The other way of looking at the exchange is that these are simply the curt remarks of a justice dealing with an acrimonious conflict in chambers, and showing a bit of frustration at the parties.  In that case, there would be absolutely nothing unusual or improper about the situation.

Which one is the correct view?

It’s hard to say.  In my own opinion, I think the latter is probably correct.

What is for certain, is that this would not be a subject of debate, much less of a complaint to the CJC had Jack King not posted nude pictures of his wife on a porn website.

The fact that those pictures were posted now has the potential to bring into question virtually every decision Justice Douglas, a family court judge, has made involving an assessment of moral turpitude or sexual misconduct.

This underlines the reason why judges are held to a far higher standard of personal conduct than the average citizen, and why Justice Douglas cannot remain in her position unless the federal cabinet, who appointed her in the first place, demonstrates that it would have appointed her notwithstanding the controversial photographs, and outlines its reasons.

If that is not forthcoming, then she must resign her post – despite the fact that she is likely an unwitting victim of her husband’s unfortunate choices.