A litigant accused the judge of berating and mimicking her during a hearing
A Canadian Judicial Council review panel will take action against an Alberta judge who humiliated a litigant by speaking to her at a hearing in a condescending manner but concluded that his conduct does not warrant removal from office.
Taking action against Justice Earl Wilson of the Court of King's Bench of Alberta will remind him “that maintaining civility and respect requires him to ensure a proper balance between upholding the right of the parties to be heard and ensuring the efficiency of the process,” a CJC review panel wrote in a March 18th decision. The CJC announced the decision on Tuesday.
“The nature of the case to be decided and what a judge may consider to be a lack of cooperation by counsel are no justification to brush aside principles of civility and respect,” the review panel added.
The complaint against Wilson stemmed from an incident last June when he presided over a hearing involving a former couple. The applicant had filed for a restraining order against his ex-girlfriend, whom he accused of making disparaging social media posts about him. Wilson granted the restraining order at the end of the hearing.
In a letter to a member of the CJC, Wilson wrote that he was frustrated by the nature of the case. He admitted that he told the parties, “I can’t get over your generation,” “You must have more time on your hands than the rest of us do,” and “Do something creative, work, read, study something, make something of yourself.”
The applicant’s ex-girlfriend filed a complaint against Wilson with the CJC, alleging the judge berated her, mimicked her voice and speech, bullied and humiliated her, and is a racist.
A screening officer at the CJC, who obtained an audio recording of the hearing, declined to dismiss the complaint and referred it to a member of the CJC’s judicial conduct committee.
According to the CJC’s procedure for reviewing complaints about judges, complaints must first be reviewed by screening officers before a member of the judicial conduct committee can pass them on. If the committee member does not dismiss the complaint, they can refer it to a review panel.
The review panel can only refer complaints to a fourth review stage – a full hearing panel – if it determines that the judge’s removal from office might be warranted.
In his letter, Wilson apologized for his conduct. He said he listened to the audio recording of the hearing and understood why the complainant felt berated and humiliated. He added that he was frustrated with the application and the parties’ behaviour and directed his frustration largely at the complainant.
However, he said he did not believe that he mimicked her speech.
As part of the review process, the CJC received a letter from Kent Davidson, chief justice of the Court of King's Bench. Davidson wrote that while Wilson’s tone was “unnecessarily harsh, brusque, and disrespectful,” he did not believe it was racially motivated.
The judicial conduct committee member referred the complaint to a review panel, which declined to take the matter to a full hearing panel. Noting that the criteria for removing a judge from office “are onerous,” the review panel said Wilson’s removal was unjustified.
Instead, the review panel opted to act against Wilson under s. 102 of the Judges Act, which empowers the panel to issue private or public reprimands against Wilson, order him to apologize, take specific measures like counselling or continuing education, or take other actions that the panel considers appropriate.
A spokesperson for the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta told Canadian Lawyer on Tuesday, “The Court of King’s Bench is aware of the decision, and we support and appreciate the work of the Canadian Judicial Council.”
Wilson could not be reached for comment.
