Canada’s Bondage Judge Faces Judicial Inquiry in May

It has been twenty months since Madam Justice Lori Douglas’ world crashed around her when she became the focus of a sexual harassment complaint, but she will have her “day in court” on May 17, 2012 when the judicial inquiry into her personal life begins.

The unsavoury events leading to the inquiry unraveled in September 2010 when Douglas, the Associate Chief Justice of the Manitoba Court of Queen’s Bench, Family Division, stepped down from her post while the Canadian Judicial Council investigated a complaint filed against her involving her husband, prominent family law lawyer Jack King. The complainant was Alexander Chapman, age 45, originally from Trinidad, who retained Mr. King to act for him in his divorce proceedings in 2002.

At the time, Ms. Douglas and Mr. King were partners at a prestigious Winnipeg law firm. Mr. Chapman alleged that after Mr. King completed his divorce, King befriended him and tried to persuade Mr. Chapman to engage in a sexual tryst with his wife, Madam Justice Douglas.

Mr. King gave Mr. Chapman photographs of his wife and a password to a website that caters to those who have an interest in interracial sex. The photos of Douglas portrayed her as nude, except for bondage regalia, and participating in a sex act.

When Mr. Chapman complained to Mr. King’s law firm, King paid Mr. Chapman $25,000 in exchange for Chapman’s agreement to not sue him or his law firm and to destroy the photos.

Jack King resigned from the firm after the payment was made.

Fast forward to September 2010 when Mr. Chapman reneged on the 2003 agreement and sued lawyer King, Justice Douglas and King’s law firm, Thompson Dorfman Sweatman LLP, for sexual harassment, negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress, seeking $67 million dollars.

Chapman had not, in fact, destroyed the photos and gave some of them to CBC TV and the Manitoba Law Society. The CBC declined to publish them.

In response, Mr. King brought an application to the court to dismiss Mr. Chapman’s lawsuit on two grounds: that Chapman had signed an agreement in 2003 giving up his right to sue and that Chapman had waited too long (seven years) to bring his claim.

The Court agreed with Mr. King and threw out Chapman’s case. Earlier, Mr. Chapman had abandoned the lawsuits against Justice Douglas and Mr. King’s former law firm. The Court also ordered that Chapman cease any further dissemination of the photos, however, earlier this year, the website abovethelaw.com published the salacious photos (they have since been taken down and replaced with written descriptions of the images).

Mr. King’s lawyer explained that Mr. King posted the photos on the internet without his wife’s knowledge and consent while he was suffering from depression. King also admitted to arranging what Chapman referred to as a “first date” with Ms. Douglas: an invitation to join King and his wife on a vacation in Cancun in 2002. Chapman declined the offer.

In April 2011, Mr. King plead guilty to sexual harassment for cajoling his former client to have sex with his wife. Typically, a Law Society disciplinary hearing for sexual harassment will lead to a suspension of a lawyer’s license to practice law, however, in Mr. King’s case, he received a reprimand and costs of $13,650.00.

Mr. Chapman’s life has also been difficult, post-lawsuit. He was fired from Great West Life Insurance where he worked as a computer programmer. He has also had difficulty finding a lawyer to assist him with his case; Chapman is no stranger to the courts, however. He has been convicted for arson, theft, and uttering death threats. He has also been a party in nine other lawsuits including one action that he brought against the Winnipeg Police Department.

In the meantime, the Winnipeg Free Press challenged the Law Society to disclose what they knew in 2003 and what steps they took then to protect the public. A spokesperson for the Law Society revealed they were aware of Mr. King’s conduct, but did nothing because King was not practicing law at the time of their investigation.

Mr. Chapman discredits any alleged Law Society investigation of Jack King, citing the fact that neither he nor the lawyer who negotiated the 2003 agreement between him, King and his law firm were ever interviewed.

Pubic inquires into judicial complaints are a rare event in Canada and are ordered when the complaint against a judge is serious enough to warrant a judge’s removal from office. The inquiry results are then forwarded to the Minister of Justice who, in accordance with Canada’s Constitution can only be removed after a joint address by Parliament.

Does Judge Douglas’ private life render her unfit to continue as a judge or is she a victim of her husband’s breach of her privacy? Is it appropriate for the Judicial Council to scrutinize a judge’s morality?

In my view, it will be very difficult for Madam Justice Douglas to return to her court duties. Respect for the court and its judicial officers is a cornerstone of Canadian justice. Snickers and snide remarks can only undermine her judicial authority.

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang

6 thoughts on “Canada’s Bondage Judge Faces Judicial Inquiry in May

  1. It’s terrible that Mr. King exhibited some horrendous judgment which is now likely to cost Judge Douglas dearly.

    It’s also terrible that society looks down on consensual sexual activity between adults. The photographs, to my knowledge, do not show Judge Douglas engaged in anything illegal. To my knowledge, there has been no indication that Judge Douglas was involved in the attempt to coerce the client. If things turn out otherwise I will certainly reconsider my position.

    That other members of the legal community might snicker is something that reflects terribly on those people and “polite” society in general. Based on the information I have read, Judge Douglas is a victim of the stupidity and malice of others.

    Respect for the judicial system is important, but it was not too long ago that female judges had difficulty getting respect in the Courtroom – honestly, I still hear some terribly disrespectful remarks about female judges today, just because they are women. Public opinion should not be the only consideration in a situation like this where public opinion is so emotionally-charged.

  2. sadly, but I am not convince that Douglas was not aware of her husband wrong doing. As a matter of fact , One should consider speaking to their neighbours who will give a different side of Douglas.

  3. The comments concerning Justice Douglas’ apparent lack of illegality in her actions or even knowledge of King’s actions are well-founded. But there is more to this than that. Show me a major corporatioon that, faced with a similar situation where otherwise private activities become public, would not either demand a resignation or initiate immediate dismissal. Because the actions of senior people reflect on the corporation; that is part of the package that senior managers (or in this case judges) have to accept when they assume their roles. There is a fundemental element of trust between employer and employee that is inevitably violated in situations such as this.

    Although I am not a large corporation, I am engaged in a business that requires that I and my staff be entrusted with often sensitive information Any employee of mine who is publicly associated with activities such as occurred in this case betrays the perception of trust fundamental to my business and also exhibits extremely poor judgement…and that person would have to go.

  4. Pretty poor blog post, Ms Lang.

    You list the alleged series of events fairly coherently, gloss over a couple of hugely important questions at the end of your post, and then conclude that it will be tough for ACJ Douglas to return because of “snickers and snide remarks”?!!

    You are an officer of the court. You are a professional. It is your duty to guide your client through the court process and help maintain its integrity and authority. If you appear before ACJ Douglas, you tell your client not to snicker or make snide remarks – just as you would advise them that her religion, gender, beliefs, race, and colour do not matter to their case.

    Or is it you that is doing the snickering?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s