Case information

Constitutional law — Judicial independence — Charter of rights — Freedom of Expression —Administrative Law — Boards and Tribunals — Justices of the Peace Review Council – Judicial Review — Correct approach to judicial independence and the separation of powers in the investigation and adjudication of misconduct complaints by a judicial council — Whether Doré v. Barreau du Québec, 2012 SCC 12, is still good law and if so, whether administrative decision-makers must advert to the Oakes analysis when assessing proportionality under Doré — Appellate courts’ approach to evidence in an appeal of a judicial review of an administrative decision — Justices of the Peace Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.  J.4, ss. 11.1, 11.2

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

The respondent, justice of the peace Julie Lauzon (hereafter “JP Lauzon”), wrote an article that was critical of the operation of bail courts and of the conduct of some Crown prosecutors appearing in her court. The article was published online and in print by a national newspaper.

After the article appeared, the applicant Justices of the Peace Review Council received three complaints about JP Lauzon. Following an investigation, the Council’s complaints committee ordered a formal hearing.

The hearing panel unanimously determined that JP Lauzon had engaged in judicial misconduct. A majority of the panel recommended that she be removed from office; the dissenting member would have imposed a reprimand and a 30-day suspension.

The Divisional Court dismissed JP Lauzon’s application for judicial review. The Court of Appeal for Ontario allowed the appeal in part; the court substituted the dissenting panel member’s suggested disposition for that of the majority, and ordered that JP Lauzon be reprimanded and suspended for 30 days.