The most widely read magazine for Canadian lawyers
Issue link: https://digital.canadianlawyermag.com/i/50804
CeNTRAl Doré loses challenge over Boilard letter A Montreal criminal lawyer who was in a letter-writing row with a Quebec Superior Court judge almost nine years ago has lost a challenge to a 21-day suspension for his "man-to- man" missive to the magistrate. Gilles Doré appealed a June 2008 Superior Court ruling that upheld the sanction imposed in January 2006 by the Barreau du Québec and supported by the province's professions tribunal in November 2007 for his inflammatory let- ter to Justice Jean-Guy Boilard. "Besides the personal insults that the letter contains, telling a judge he was 'deep- ly unfair' attacks the very foundation of the role of a judge," Quebec Court of Appeal Judge André Rochon wrote in the Jan. 13 decision that was backed by fel- low appellate magistrates Jacques Dufresne and Jacques Léger. While he acknowledged "the penalty [suspension] is high," Rochon added "it is not unreasonable. It seems to me deferential against a lawyer who has committed a serious ethical misconduct." Doré tells Canadian Lawyer he is "seri- ously considering" seeking leave to take the matter to the Supreme Court of Canada. He and his lawyer Pierre Fournier both declined to further discuss the case. The offending letter was written June 21, 2001, after Boilard openly chastised letters to the editor Funny but not surprising Levant has done in his column ["Free money means bad politics," Canadian Lawyer, March 2010], but remain completely silent on another, far costlier, far less democratic, far more self-serving, and far worse political subsidy, as Mr. Levant also has done. I am talking, of course, about the 75-per-cent-tax deduction subsidy for i t is quite funny, but not at all surprising, to hear another Conservative profess outrage over the per-vote subsidy as Ezra Doré in court for trying to get his client — a member of the Hells Angels-affiliated Rockers gang — released on bail. Boilard called the motion overblown rhetoric and hyperbole, suggesting the accused may have ended up in a worse position with Doré representing him. "Mr. Doré an inso- lent lawyer is rarely of use to his client," said the judge. Doré's subsequent letter started out: "Sir, I have barely left the court. A few minutes ago, you cowardly hid behind your status while making unfair and unjustified remarks . . . in a decision whose good faith is likely to be argued before the Court of Appeal. "I chose the epistolary form in response," he explained, because "this is man to man, outside the circuit of my profession and your position. If the following has never been told to you, it is high time." Doré went on: "If your chronic inability to master some skills ('social skills' that you love so much in English) led you to behave in a pedantic, surly, and mean way in your everyday life, I do not care. If, however, you deliberately import these traits in your performance on the bench and you make that your trademark, then I care a lot and it seems appropriate to let you know. "I would have liked to tell you this personally, but I strongly doubt that in political donations. If you donate $100, it costs you $25 and taxpayers pick up the difference for the additional $75 to the party of your choice. That means, today, non-Conservatives are subsidizing the Conservative Party with their tax dollars since they have more donors. At least the per-vote subsidy has a democratic element to it and parties only get funds based on votes from their own supporters. Worse still, the more money you raise from wealthy donors, the more the rest of us taxpayers subsidize your choice of political party. The tax deduction subsidy your arrogance and in the absence of your judicial screen, you are able to face your critics. Worse yet, you have the worst flaws for a man in your position: you are funda- mentally unfair and I doubt that this may change someday." Tacked on the end: "P.S. Since this letter is purely personal, I do not see any need to distribute it." The disciplinary committee ruled that "a lawyer is not entitled to address a judge by calling him 'execrable, arrogant, and fundamentally unfair' and judging his behaviour as 'pedantic, surly, and mean.'" In 2002, after investigating a com- plaint by Doré, the Canadian Judicial Council wrote a letter to Boilard in which his vitriolic treatment of lawyers was questioned and some of his remarks towards Doré criticized. The reprimand said there wouldn't be an investigation, but the council found "some of the judge's remarks in relation to the lawyer unjusti- fied and unacceptable." It was leaked and led Boilard to resign four months into a Hells Angels mega-tri- al. In stepping down, Boilard announced he no longer had the moral authority to preside over the trial because his impar- tiality was being publicly questioned. — MIKE KING mking@videotron.ca also costs Canadian taxpayers far more than the $30 million cost of the per- vote subsidy. Perhaps worst of all, the tax deduction subsidy with its 75-per-cent tax deduction creates an incentive to donate to parties rather than charities. But the Conservative Party benefits the most from the tax deduction subsidy. It is hardly surprising that it remains silent about it and prefers, like Mr. Levant, to distract you with shinier things that hit the other parties a bit more. Edward G. Betts Partner, Blake Cassels & Graydon LLP www. C ANAD i AN law ye rmag.com APRIL 2010 7