Report of a Judicial Inquiry Re: His Worship Richard Quon,
A Justice of the Peace
The Honou rable
Mr. Justice
Joseph Anthony De Filippis Commissioner
David Stratas
Heenan Blaikie LLP
200 Bay Street -Suite 2600 South Tower, P.O. Box 185 Royal Bank Plaza
Toronto,
Ontario M5J 2J4
Mark J. Sandler Cooper, Sandler
& West Barristers and Solicitors Suite 1900
439 University Avenue Toronto, Ontario
MSG lYS
Commission Counsel Counsel for Justice of the Peace Richard Quon
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE
J.A. DE FILIPPIS ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
242 KING STREET EAST OSHAWA, ONTARIO LlH 3Z8
L'HONORABLE
JUGE J.A. DE FILIPPIS COUR DE JUSTICE DE L'ONTARIO
242, RUE
KING EST OSHAWA (ONTARIO) LlH 3Z8
TELEPHONE/TELEPHONE (905) 430-4494
FAX/TELECOPIEUR (905) 430-4499
August 9, 2006
The Honourable
James K. Bartleman Lieutenant
Governor of the Province of Ontario Legislative Building
Queen’s Park Suite 131 Toronto,
Ontario M7A 1A1
May it please
Your Honour:
Re: Report of the Commission of Inquiry into
the conduct of His Worship Richard Quon
A
Justice of the Peace
Further to my
appointment by Order in Council No. 1697/2005 to inquire into the question of whether there has been
misconduct by His Worship Richard Quon, a Justice
of the Peace, and pursuant to s.12 of the Justices
of the Peace Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.J.4 as amended, I have the honour to submit my report.
Joseph De Filippis Commissioner
Enclosures
Report of a Judicial Inquiry Re: His Worship
Richard Quon
A
Justice of the Peace
I. INTRODUCTION
By
Order in Council dated November 2, 2005, I was appointed to conduct an Inquiry to determine whether there has been
misconduct by His Worship Richard Quon and to
prepare a report, in accordance with s. 12 of the Justices of the Peace Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. J.4. A copy of the Order in Council is attached as
Appendix I to this report. Notice of the
Inquiry was published in the Toronto Star
on December 16, 2005. A copy of the
Notice is attached as Appendix II to this report. The Inquiry was held on April 24 and 25, 2006. An Agreed Statement of
Facts, with 19 exhibits, was filed at the Inquiry. A copy of that Statement, without the exhibits, is attached
Appendix III to this report. In
addition to the evidence set out in the Agreed Statement of Facts, I heard
testimony from Justice of the Peace
Quon and considered letters of support provided to the Inquiry.
His
Worship Quon was appointed to the office of justice of the peace in 1993. He presides in Toronto.
II. THE STATUTORY FRAMEWORK
The process for dealing with complaints against justices of the
peace is set out in the Justices of the Peace Act. Section 9
establishes a Justices of the Peace
Review Council which, amongst its other functions is to receive and investigate complaints against justices
of the peace.
Pursuant
to s. 11 (1), once the Review Council receives a complaint against a justice of the peace, it shall take such
action to investigate the complaint including
a review of it with the justice of peace, as it considers advisable.
The proceedings of the Review Council
are not public but it may inform the Attorney General that it has undertaken an investigation and the
Attorney General may make that fact public (s.
11(3)). Upon the completion of its investigation, the Review Council may report its opinion regarding the complaint to the
Attorney General and may recommend that an
inquiry be held under s. 12 (s. 11(7) (a)).
If
the Review Council recommends the holding of an inquiry, the Lieutenant Governor in Council may appoint
a provincial judge to inquire into the question of whether there has been misconduct by a justice of the peace.
The Public Inquiries Act applies to the inquiry (s. 12 (2)).
Upon
the completion of the inquiry and in the event that misconduct is found, the report of the inquiry may recommend,
(a) the
Lieutenant Governor in Council remove the justice of the peace from office in accordance with section 8
(s.12 (3)) or
(b) the Review Council implement
a disposition under s. 12 (3.3).
A
justice of the peace may be removed from office only by order of the Lieutenant Governor in Council s. 8
(1). Such an order can only be made if:
(a) a
complaint regarding the justice of the peace has been made to the Review Council and
(b) the removal is recommended
following an inquiry held under s. 12, on the ground that the Justice of the Peace has become incapacitated or
disabled from the due execution of
his or her office by reason of,
(i) infirmity,
(ii) conduct
that is incompatible with the execution of the duties of his or her office, or
(iii)
having failed to perform the duties of his or
her office as assigned.
Where misconduct has been found and the report recommends that the Review Council implement a disposition
under s. 12 (3.3) other than removal from office, the Review Council may,
(a) warn the justice of the peace;
(b) reprimand the justice of the peace;
(c) order
the justice of the peace to apologize to the complainant or to any other person;
(d) order
the justice of the peace to take specified measures, such as receiving education or treatment as a
condition of continuing to sit as a justice of
the peace;
(e) suspend the justice of the
peace with pay, for any period; or
(f) suspend
the justice of the peace without pay, but with benefits, for a period up to 30 days.
The report may
recommend that the justice of the peace be compensated for all or
part
of the cost of the legal services incurred in connection with the inquiry (s.
12 (3.1)). Such an award may be made
whether or not there is a finding of misconduct. The report shall be laid before the Legislative Assembly if it is in
session or, if not, within fifteen
days after the commencement of the next session.
III. THE AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS
This Inquiry arises from two complaints concerning Justice of the
Peace Quon as well as his failure to
respond to the Justice of the Peace Review Council when contacted about those complaints. The Justices of
the Peace Review Council conducted an inquiry
and made a report on March 2, 2004. By letter dated May 17, 2004,
Justice of the Peace Quon apologized
to Mr. Hope, the first complainant. As already noted, most of the evidence pertaining to the alleged
misconduct was received at this Inquiry by way of an Agreed Statement of Facts and accompanying exhibits. That
evidence is summarized below.
1.
The Complaint by Mr. Hope
The
first complaint arises from Justice of the Peace Quon’s conduct in court on
September 6, 2001 with respect to Mr. John P. Hope. Mr. Hope appeared before Justice of the Peace Quon at the Old City
Hall in Toronto to plead “guilty with an
explanation” to a parking infraction. Mr. Hope gave his explanation. Justice of
the Peace Quon accepted the guilty
plea and invited the Crown to make submissions on sentence. The Crown declined to make submissions. Mr.
Hope then asked where he should pay his fine.
Justice of the Peace Quon replied that the court had not yet imposed a
fine. His Worship then stated, “In light of your guilty plea and explanation,
the court will be lenient and will
reduce your fine of $60 down to $20.”
Mr.
Hope asked whether he could pay his fine by post. Justice of the Peace Quon said, “You might get something in the
mail, or else you can pay it at 55 John Street.” Mr. Hope then
replied, “Okay. Well, it’s more inconvenience.
You know, one is forced to plead
guilty by this post system, or come down. I mean I really object to the whole process, but obviously this is not
the forum to voice them. Thank you.”
After hearing from Mr. Hope, Justice of the Peace Quon imposed an “additional court
cost” of $10 for “that last comment”. Mr. Hope said, “I’m
allowed to put my point of view
across, surely” and asked how he could
formally object. Justice of the Peace Quon imposed “an additional court
cost”, making the total fine $40. Mr. Hope stated that this
was not fair and asked to whom he could write and complain. Justice of the
Peace Quon imposed a further $10,
making the total fine $50. He asked Mr. Hope whether he wanted to continue. Mr. Hope expressed the view that he
wanted to “represent [himself]… without this form of
duress” and that this was “unreasonable”. Justice of the Peace
Quon imposed a further $10, making the total fine $60. Mr. Hope replied, “I shall write to the Attorney General.” Justice of the Peace Quon imposed a further $10, making the total fine $70.
On
September 5, 2001, Mr. Hope complained, in writing, to the federal Department of Justice. Two days later he wrote to
provincial Ministry of the Attorney General and the Ontario Judicial Council. Mr. Hope suggested that Justice of
the Peace Quon be asked to explain
his conduct. His Worship Quon did not respond to the Review Council’s invitation to comment.
2.
The Complaint by Mr.
Haghparast-Rad
The second complaint arises from Justice Peace Quon’s refusal to recognize Mr. Haghparast-Rad as an agent in court, without offering him a
reasonable opportunity to respond.
.
(a) The proceedings before Quon, J.P.
On July 15, 2002 Mr. Haghparast-Rad appeared before Justice of the
Peace Quon, in Court at the Old City Hall in Toronto, as
agent for the defendant in the matter of R. v. Azin Baharlo. Justice of the Peace Quon requested that Mr. Haghparast-Rad produce identification such as a ‘driver’s
license’ or ‘Picture I.D’. This request was complied with.
Justice of the Peace Quon appeared to make a note of his name in his book before returning his identification
document(s) to him.
On October 29,
2002 Mr. Haghparast-Rad appeared before Justice of the Peace Quon, in Court at the Old City Hall in Toronto, as agent for the defendant in
the matter of R. v. Ali Gheisari. He indicated that he
was ready to proceed with a trial on behalf of
the defendant. The Crown was also ready to proceed. Justice of the Peace
Quon told Mr. Haghparast-Rad that he was not prepared to allow him to represent
anybody in his Court because, “It has come to this Court’s attention that you are presently being
charged with criminal offences, is
that correct?” Mr. Haghparast-Rad
advised Justice of the Peace Quon, inter alia, that “no, that is incorrect. For the record, I have
not been charged. There is no
pending charge. And as it stands, I do not have a criminal record.” Justice of
the Peace Quon told Mr. Haghparast-Rad that, “…You are going to have to provide proof to this Court that you have no criminal charges before the Court” and added, “The Court has been
informed by a police officer that you have criminal charges before the Court… before the Ontario Court of Justice.”
Mr. Haghparast-Rad stated he would bring
documents to disprove the allegations.
Justice of the Peace Quon then stated that, “I have also been
informed by a few of my colleagues that Mr. Haghparast-Rad has been banned from other courts…” Mr. Haghparast-Rad stated he had never been banned from any
court in Ontario. The following exchange
then occurred:
THE COURT: The Court is also aware that you have been using Commissioner for Taking Affidavits stamp improperly. The Court has seen physical evidence of that. The Court has contacted the Registrar in charge of Commissioners for Taking Affidavits, and you have been improperly using the Commissioners stamp to swear affidavits that you have no jurisdiction to swear affidavits.
MR. RAD: Well, Your Worship, that is a matter that, obviously, I don’t have any documents to bring forward or neither does Your Worship to bring anything forward. This, as you are indicating, could be allegations, facts, statements, you’ve received from…
THE COURT: There are not allegations. The Court has physically seen your Affidavit stamp that is improper. The Court has knowledge from the Registrar.
Justice of the Peace Quon advised Mr. Haghparast-Rad
that he would not have standing in
his Court, nor would he for the foreseeable future. He adjourned the trial
matter and asked the investigating
officer to notify the defendant of the new date. After Mr. Haghparast-Rad
left the courtroom, Justice of the Peace Quon addressed those present and stated;
All right. This Court apologizes to any civilian witnesses that have
had to appear today. The person that
is representing Mr. Gheisari, the Court has
been informed that he has been charged with criminal offences, therefore this person is not proper to represent anyone before this Court
as it effects [sic] credibility. Mr.
Rad has been told or informed that he can no
longer represent anyone before this Court. The Court again apologizes to any civilian witnesses that had to appear today.
(b) Other Background Information
Mr.
Haghparast-Rad was convicted on December 14, 1995 of use of a credit card obtained by crime (two charges), and
possession of a credit card obtained by crime
(one charge). In February 2002, he received a pardon in respect of these convictions.
In
the summer of 2002 Justice of the Peace Cresswell advised Justice of the Peace Quon that he was aware of a newspaper
article identifying Mr. Haghparast-Rad as a
person arrested at York University on weapons charges. A Toronto Sun article dated September 12, 1996 shows Mr.
Haghparast-Rad being arrested by a Toronto police officer on weapons charges. Justice of the Peace
Cresswell also advised Justice of the Peace
Quon that he did not know
what had what happened to Mr. Haghparast-Rad in relation to those charges.
In
August of 2002, Justice of the Peace Quon suspected that Mr. Haghparast-Rad had presented
an affidavit bearing an improper commissioner’s stamp. He referred the
affidavit in question to the Legal Appointments Office of the Ministry of the Attorney General. The Ministry advised His Worship that Mr.
Haghparast-Rad was not authorized to commission the affidavit and that the Commissioner’s stamp did not reflect the restrictions upon his right to commission affidavits.
Constable Graham Philipson was in the courtroom on the day Justice
of the Peace Quon banned Mr.
Haghparast-Rad. After the sittings that day, Constable Philipson approached Justice of the Peace Quon
regarding Mr. Haghparast-Rad’s alleged improper use
of his Commissioner’s stamp. Constable Philipson was of the view
that there was merit to the issues
raised regarding the Commissioner’s
stamp and conducted an investigation. Constable Philipson learned through an interview with one of Mr. Haghparast-Rad’s former employees that a secretary in his office occasionally used
the stamp. He also learned that
certain paperwork from Mr. Haghparast-Rad’s office involved unauthorized
use of signatures, and the filing of “false” affidavits.
(c) Subsequent Developments
By
letter dated September 14, 2004, Mr. Mark Sandler, counsel for Justice of the Peace Quon, wrote the Attorney General,
and advised that Mr. Haghparast-Rad had been
detained in Japan in July 2004 and charged with importation of amphetamines. By letter dated March 1, 2005, Mr. Sandler
also advised that Mr. Haghparast-Rad had been
convicted on February 4, 2005 of the drug importation offence in Japan. This
fact was reported in Japan Today.
The newspaper report in question was enclosed in Mr. Sandler’s
letter. Both counsel at this Inquiry are content that I consider the newspaper report to be accurate.
3. The Failure to Respond to the Justice of the Peace Review Council
On
September 23, 2002, the Justices of the Peace Review Council wrote Justice of the Peace Quon requesting a response to
Mr. Hope’s complaint. The Review
Council’s letter reflected (as it was believed at
the time) that the quality of the audiotapes of the relevant court proceeding was such that they could not be
transcribed but were available to be
listened to. On November 13, 2002, the
Review Council wrote again since Justice of the Peace
Quon had not responded to the first letter. His Worship did not respond. On April 2, 2003, the Review Council wrote a
third letter about the complaint made by Mr.
Hope. The Review Council also advised that a second complaint had been
received from Mr. Haghparast-Rad. The Review Council invited Justice of
the Peace Quon to respond by April
30, 2003. Justice of the Peace Quon did not respond in a timely way to the above letters.
IV.
THE TESTIMONY OF JUSTICE OF THE
PEACE QUON
Justice
of the Peace Quon received his Bachelor of Laws from McGill University in 1986.
He was called to the Bar of Ontario in March 1989 and was appointed as a justice of the peace in August 1993. In
2006, he received his Master of Laws from Osgoode Hall Law School. Justice of the Peace Quon presides, inter alia, over trials of offences under the provincial statutes and
municipal bylaws, over bail hearings under the Criminal Code,
applications for search warrants under various statutes, proceedings involving young persons, and Mental Health Act applications. He has written extensively on a
variety of legal issues, and has been
cited on a number of occasions with approval by higher courts. He has continued to preside as a justice of the peace,
without incident, since the matters
that are the subject matter of these proceedings.
Justice of the Peace Quon estimated that on an average day there are
50 to 125 cases on his docket and
that every year at least 5,000 litigants appear before him. Many are routine matters that can be quickly
disposed of. Some can be complex and require greater attention. The latter are
reflected in two volumes of judgments written by Justice of the Peace Quon that were filed at the Inquiry.
Justice of the Peace Quon tried to read the letter of apology he
sent to Mr. Hope. He found it
difficult to control his emotions and his counsel finished the task. His Worship testified that he was wrong to
impose costs against Mr. Hope, as the latter had done nothing to merit this sanction. Justice of the Peace Quon
stated that he “acted
inappropriately” and acknowledged that his conduct was, as alleged by Mr. Hope, “arbitrary
and arrogant”. His Worship also testified that his conduct is “not what Ontarians
expect of a judicial officer”.
Justice
of the Peace Quon testified that in dealing with Mr. Haghparast-Rad, he intended to proceed in accordance with
section 50 of the Provincial Offences
Act. It provides
that a defendant may appear personally, by counsel, or by agent. The
section also states that the court may bar a person who appears as
agent, but is not a lawyer, if that person is
not competent to properly represent the defendant. Justice of the Peace
Quon stated that he was concerned
about Mr. Haghparast-Rad because of information received that he had a criminal record and had abused his
authority to be a commissioner. In addition, he was not impressed
with Mr. Haghparast-Rad’s explanation about the latter. Justice of the Peace
Quon stated he did not understand there to be an established procedure governing “section 50 inquiries”.
Nevertheless, His Worship conceded that he denied due process to Mr. Haghparast-Rad because he made a finding of
misconduct without giving the agent
an opportunity to defend himself.
Justice of the Peace Quon testified that the Justice of the Peace
Review Council is an important
institution charged with the responsibility to address public concerns about the administration of justice. Although
noting that he was distracted by the volume of
work His Worship stated it was “totally wrong” and “arrogant” not to
respond to the Review Council.
Justice
of the Peace Quon testified that this Inquiry has had a great impact upon him. He stated that his conduct had adversely
affected, not only his own reputation, but also that of all judicial officers. He recognizes the role of this
Inquiry in restoring any loss of public confidence. In discussing these
matters, Justice of the Peace Quon, once again,
had difficulty in controlling his emotions.
V.
OTHER EVIDENCE
In response to the Notice of Inquiry, numerous letters were received
by persons wishing to support Justice
of the Peace Quon. Included are letters from other justices
of the peace, lawyers, and agents.
One of the lawyers who wrote to the Inquiry also showed her support by attending this hearing. The letters show that
Justice of the Peace Quon is
respected as a thoughtful and fair judicial
officer.
VI. ANALYSIS
1. The Context
Misconduct by a judicial officer can occur in or out of the
courtroom. Misconduct in the
courtroom will almost always involve errors of fact and/or law. However, such
errors do not usually amount to
misconduct. It is important to distinguish between the two. The appeal courts properly deal with
errors of fact or law. On the other hand, the harm to the administration of justice caused by judicial misconduct is
not curable by the appellate process.
The
sole purpose of this Inquiry is to determine if there has been misconduct on
the part of Justice of the Peace
Quon in his treatment of Mr. Hope and Mr. Haghparast-Rad and for his failure to respond to the Justice of the Peace
Review Council. If so, it is my duty
to recommend a disposition. I also have the discretion to recommend that His Worship’s legal costs be paid.
In
conducting this Inquiry, I have not forgotten that judicial officers are human
and liable to make mistakes. I have also kept in mind that public
confidence in the administration of
justice is of paramount importance. The
rule of law – an integral part of our
democratic system of government - is based upon such confidence.
2.
A Uniform Test
Many
people who appear in a courtroom do so before a justice of the peace. Indeed, Justice of the Peace Quon
attested to the daily volume of cases in his court. In addition to trials of parking tags, speeding
tickets, by-law infractions, and other provincial offences, justices
of the peace also preside in bail hearings in criminal matters and decide whether to issue search warrants in aid
of investigations. There can be no
doubt that justices of the peace have a significant impact on
public perception of the administration of justice.
In the Report of a Judicial
Inquiry Re: His Worship R. Romain, A Justice of the Peace (Ontario: 17 July 2003), the
Honourable Justice R. Otter, considered whether there should be a different standard of conduct applied to
justices of the peace and judges. He
noted that, unlike judges, justices of the peace are not required to be lawyers
with at least 10 years experience
prior to appointment. Commissioner Otter found that “the jurisprudence does not adumbrate different standards of
conduct for judges of different
levels of court, whether provincial or federal, trial or appellate”. He concluded, “given the
critically important role of justice of the peace at the gateway to our
judicial system, I am of the view
that there is no reason that a justice of the peace should not be held to the same high standard of conduct as all
other judicial officers.” Justice of the Peace
Romain challenged this ruling
in an application for judicial review. In response to the question” did the Commissioner raise the
bar too high”, O’Driscoll, J, writing for the
Divisional Court, stated,
“this question is in the abstract and defies an answer”. He added that the Commissioner was required to hear
evidence and make findings and “it was reasonable
for the Commissioner to consider authorities relating to the behavioural
standards of other judicial officers”.
In
my view, all judicial officers must be held to the same standard of conduct. The different environment in which
justices of the peace, trial judges, and appellate judges discharge their duties, may be relevant to a
consideration of whether there has been
misconduct in a given case. However, the
test to be applied must be the same. To do otherwise
would be wrong in principle and diminish the important work performed by those subject to lesser standard.
3.
The Standard of Conduct
In
Re Douglas [2006] LAWNET 1, the
Ontario Judicial Council considered the meaning
of judicial misconduct by reference to two leading decisions of the Supreme
Court of Canada: Therrien v Minister of Justice [2001] 2
S.C.R. 3 and Moreau-Berube v New Brunswick (Judicial Council), [2002]
1 S.C.R. 249. The Ontario Judicial Council began
by acknowledging the conflicting principles inherent in the process: The Supreme Court discussed the tension between judicial accountability and judicial independence. Judges must be accountable for their judicial and extra-judicial conduct so
that the public has [sic] confidence in their capacity to perform their the duties of
office impartially, independently,
and with integrity. When public confidence is undermined by a judge’s conduct there must be a process
for remedying the harm that has been
occasioned by that conduct. It is important to recognize, however, that the manner in which complaints of judicial
misconduct are addressed can have an
inhibiting or chilling effect on judicial action. The process
for reviewing allegations of judicial misconduct must therefore provide for accountability without
inappropriately curtailing the independence
or integrity of judicial thought and
decision-making.
The Ontario Judicial Council described the standard of
conduct as follows: Paraphrasing the
test set out by the Supreme Court in Therrien
and Moreau-Berube, the question is….whether the impugned conduct is so seriously contrary to the
impartiality, integrity, and independence of
the judiciary that it has undermined the public’s confidence in the
ability of the judge to perform the
duties of office or in the administration of
justice generally and that it is necessary for the Judicial Council to
make one of the dispositions
referred to in the section in order to restore
that confidence. It is only when the conduct complained of crosses this threshold that the range of
dispositions…is to be considered.
The
Ontario Judicial Council stated that a finding of misconduct requires “clear and convincing proof based on cogent evidence”.
Counsel
for Justice of the Peace Quon suggests that Re
Douglas provides for a two part standard for misconduct, namely, (1) conduct that is so
seriously contrary to the
impartiality, integrity, and independence of the judiciary that it has
undermined the public’s confidence in
the ability of the judge or the administration of justice generally and
(2) that it is necessary for the Judicial council to make a disposition to
restore that confidence. Counsel
argues that if a judicial officer has acted in a way that undermines public confidence but has
taken steps to restore that confidence (such as, for example, by way of apology, counseling, or further
education), there can be no finding of misconduct.
Counsel for Justice of the Peace Quon suggests this formulation of the test is
implicit in prior jurisprudence but
acknowledges it may not have been expressly stated in these terms before Re Douglas. He also points out that while I am not bound to follow Re
Douglas, I should bear in mind that it is a
decision of a four person panel that included the Associate Chief Justice of the
Ontario Court of Justice and a Justice of the Court of Appeal for Ontario.
Commission
counsel rejects the aforementioned interpretation of Re Douglas. In any
event, he submits that section 12 of the Justices
of the Peace Act contemplates two
separate steps, namely, an inquiry to determine if there has been misconduct
and, if so, a recommended
disposition. This, Commission counsel suggests, is also good public policy in that it requires that
conduct that falls below the standard of conduct be so labeled, without regard to the consideration of what, if
anything, is needed to repair the harm thereby caused to the administration
of justice. Commission counsel argues that to the extent Re Douglas states otherwise, I should decline to follow it.
I recognize the tension between judicial accountability and judicial
independence. I accept that a finding
of misconduct requires clear and convincing proof that a judicial officer has engaged in conduct that is so seriously
contrary to the impartiality, integrity, and independence of the judiciary that it
has undermined the public’s confidence in the
ability of that officer or the administration of justice. However, I need not decide whether such a finding can be made
notwithstanding that a disposition is not needed to restore such
confidence. For the reasons that follow, I am of the view that the treatment of Mr. Hope by Justice of the
Peace Quon undermined public confidence and that a disposition is necessary to restore it. I am also of the view
that, in any event, there is no misconduct with respect to the other two complaints.
4.
Findings with Respect to the
Three Complaints
The
exchange between Mr. Hope and Justice of the Peace Quon involved a routine case in a busy courtroom. A fair reading
of the transcript of proceedings leads me to
conclude that Justice of the
Peace Quon misinterpreted Mr. Hope’s questions as a challenge to his authority. The matter quickly deteriorated and His
Worship became petty and abusive. This
is especially aggravating since Mr. Hope was a self represented litigant who had acted appropriately at all times. He
was humiliated before a large group of people by the repeated award of costs each time he addressed the court.
Such conduct is so seriously contrary
to the impartiality, integrity, and independence of the judiciary that it could only undermine public confidence in the
ability of Justice of the Peace Quon to perform the duties of office or in the administration of justice
generally. I am also of the view that a
disposition is needed to restore public confidence. I have considered the
context within which the incident
occurred, His Worship’s good reputation, and his expressions of remorse. Notwithstanding this, a disposition is required.
I take a different view of the second complaint. It is not in
dispute that Justice of the Peace
Quon made a finding against Mr. Haghparast-Rad without giving him an opportunity to be heard. Due process is of fundamental importance to
the administration of
justice. This does not mean that every denial of due process amounts to judicial misconduct. In many cases, it is
a matter that is properly corrected through the appellate process.
The actions of Justice of the Peace Quon are properly characterized as a misunderstanding or misapprehension of
the law. He acted out of concern that Mr. Haghparast-Rad
had conducted himself in a manner that made him an unsuitable agent. His Worship intended to protect
the rights of the defendant represented by that agent and also preserve the integrity of the court. His actions were
neither arrogant nor arbitrary.
Rather, he made a mistake in the process undertaken to address his valid
concerns. In these circumstances, Justice of the Peace Quon did nothing, in
his treatment of Mr. Haghparast-Rad,
to undermine public confidence in his ability to discharge his duties or in
the administration of justice generally.
The failure of Justice of the Peace Quon to respond to the Review
Council was neither in his interest
nor the public interest. It is difficult to imagine a case in which it would be advisable for a justice of the peace
to refuse to respond to the Review Council.
Indeed, the failure to do so
might be relevant to a determination of whether the original complaint amounts to misconduct. For
example, the failure to respond might be seen to reflect a lack of insight into inappropriate behaviour. In this case,
much mischief might have been avoided
had Justice of the Peace Quon communicated with the Review Council in a timely manner. At the very least, he
would have understood the gravity of the situation
and the otherwise sincere apology to Mr. Hope would have been sent much earlier. In
any event, unlike lawyers who are required to respond to law society
investigations into alleged
misconduct, the Justices of the Peace Act
does not create such an obligation. Counsel for Justice of the Peace Quon submits that it follows that a
failure to respond to the Review Council can never, in itself,
be grounds for a finding of misconduct. I would
not go that far. In extraordinary circumstances it may do so. In this case, it is clear that His Worship failed to respond to the
Review Council, not out of disrespect or a desire to frustrate the
complaint process, but because he was busy and did not appreciate the seriousness of the matter. This was a
mistake and one he now bitterly regrets. It does not constitute judicial misconduct.
VII. RECCOMMENDATIONS
1. Disposition
Having
found that there has been misconduct, within the meaning of section 12 (1) of the Justices
of the Peace Act, by Justice of the Peace Quon in his treatment of Mr.
Hope, it is my duty to recommend
removal from office pursuant to section 8.1 or one of the dispositions provided in section 12(3.3) of the Act.
Even
if all three complaints had resulted in a finding of misconduct, a recommendation that Justice of the Peace
be removed from office would not be appropriate. Such a recommendation can only be made on the ground that the justice
of the peace has become
incapacitated or disabled from the due execution of his or her office by reason
of conduct that is incompatible with
the execution of his duties or his office.
That is not the case here.
The
dispositions set out in the Act range
from a warning to the justice of the peace to
suspension without pay for a period of up to 30 days. In recommending a
disposition, I am mindful that the
purpose of judicial discipline in the Act
is to rectify misconduct and
restore public confidence in the administration of justice.
The evidence at this Inquiry establishes that Justice of the Peace
Quon is a committed, industrious,
and conscientious judicial officer. The
incidents giving rise to the
complaints are not reflective of his work, and his misconduct with respect to
Mr. Hope, is an isolated event. This
Inquiry has had a significant impact on him. Justice of the Peace Quon is aware of his errors and
embarrassed by his conduct. He has learned from this experience and will continue to make a positive
contribution to the work of the court. In
my opinion, the most lenient disposition will suffice to rectify the misconduct
and restore public confidence. Accordingly, I recommend that the Review
Council warn Justice of the Peace Quon.
2.
Costs
Justice of the Peace Quon is genuinely sorry for his actions that
lead to this Inquiry. By proceeding
with an Agreed Statement of Facts these proceedings were considerably shortened. I have found one isolated act of
misconduct. The disposition I have
recommended reflects the minimal steps required to repair the harm done. Pursuant to s.12
(3.1) of the Justices of the Peace Act,
I recommend that Justice of the Peace Quon be compensated for all of his legal costs
incurred in connection with this Inquiry.
VIII. CONCLUSION
I find that there has been misconduct by Justice of the Peace Quon
in his treatment of Mr. Hope. I do not find misconduct with respect to his
dealings with Mr. Haghparast-Rad or in his failure to respond to the Justice
of the Peace Review Council. I recommend that the Review Council warn Justice of the
Peace Quon. I also recommend that his Worship
be compensated for all legal costs incurred in connection with this Inquiry.
My role as Commissioner of this Inquiry was made
considerably easier by the skill and
efforts of Mr. Stratus, Commission counsel, and Mr. Sandler, Counsel to Justice
of the Peace Quon. I thank both
of them.
No comments:
Post a Comment