The most widely read magazine for Canadian lawyers
Issue link: https://digital.canadianlawyermag.com/i/50818
and Gonzalez. After consulting a doc- tor, Gonzalez delayed the meeting and when she attempted to reschedule a week later, her call was not returned. In the meantime, she learned Stansfield had sent out a practice directive on Jan. 4, 2008 concerning the accommodation of individuals with disabilities and trial rescheduling. Gonzalez took her case to the BC Human Rights Tribunal, which ruled it had no jurisdiction over this matter DUTY LAWYER NOT SO DUTIFUL A New Westminster, B.C., lawyer has been found guilty of sexual exploitation of a 14-year-old boy to whom he served as counsel from 2004 to 2006. The lawyer is identified only as GP due to a publication ban, although his adoptive name is given in the B.C. Supreme Court judgment in R. v. G.P. The court was charged with determining whether the accused was in a position of trust at the time and had touched the boy for sexual purposes during an evening encounter at the accused's apartment in 2004. The boy, identified as J.I., had been apprehended by police in March 2004 for car theft. G.P. was appointed as duty counsel. In August, the teen breached the terms of bail release by missing curfew and his mother asked him to leave the family home. The youth ended up at the bleachers of a local high school where he was surprised to run into G.P. Court testimony showed G.P. invited the teen to spend the night driving around and they later arrived at the lawyer's apartment where G.P. served the youth coolers, showed pornographic films, and performed oral sex on him. While G.P. represented the teen into 2006, they never spoke of the incident until the youth mentioned it to a friend and it came to the attention of police. The Crown showed G.P. had initiated sexual relations with another 14-year-old youth M.R. in London, Ont. in 1992 and that under his adoptive name (no longer used) was acquitted in 1994 on charges of procuring sex from two boys under 18. The trial judge was not convinced the money given was payment to the boys. However, B.C. Supreme Court Justice Catherine Wedge allowed testimony from encounters with one of the London boys — 15 to 20 times over several months — with G.P. to be entered into the record. Wedge ruled that "in light of the disparity in the ages" between G.P. and J.I., "I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was in a position of trust in relation to J.I. with in the meaning of s. 153(1) of the Criminal Code." She also believed J.I.'s testimony that G.P. had performed oral sex on him. — JS because of judicial impunity. Gonzalez then took the BCHRT and the Ministry of the Attorney General to court for a review of the tribunal decision follow- ing a complaint she filed March 18, 2008. The tribunal decision was made without a hearing. In her reasons, Justice Janet Bruce said that "a judge is neither an agent nor an employee of the Crown" and cited the 1985 Supreme Court of Canada ruling in Morier and Boily v. Rivard that "the immunity of judges must be preserved even when it is alleged that it violated human rights." She found the tribunal had not erred. Bruce also stated this was not a case where the petitioner alleges bad faith and while some of the judge's comments "may have consti- tuted a violation of the Human Rights Code, may have improperly interfered with petitioner's ability to practise her profession and may have been unnecessary to dispose of the case," this does not "lead to a conclusion the judge was acting in a purely personal capacity and thus outside his jurisdiction." Bruce did agree the matter was not handled to a satisfactory resolution. Stansfield (who passed away due to cancer in May) should have followed up with a written letter explaining why he had not referred it to a judicial council and responded to Gonzalez' phone call for a meeting. "Nevertheless, the fact that in this par- ticular case the petitioner was unable to access the statutory remedies for judicial misconduct does not provide a proper basis for eroding the prin- ciple of judicial immunity in general by allowing her human rights complaint to proceed," ruled Bruce. — JEAN SORENSEN jean_sorensen@telus.net Searching for a better way to attract candidates? www. C ANADIAN Law ye rmag.com JULY 2009 17