CBC reports today in an article by Caitlyn Gowriluk that Lawyers barred from practising law in Canada for 3 years after having Manitoba judge followed in 2021.
The CBC article notes:
Two Alberta lawyers charged with attempting to obstruct justice have been banned from practising law anywhere in Canada for three years as part of a plea deal with Manitoba prosecutors that saw their charges stayed.
Randal Jay Cameron and John Carpay were also charged with intimidation of a justice system participant after they hired a private investigator to follow the Manitoba judge who presided over their case challenging COVID-19 restrictions in 2021.
Court of King’s Bench Justice Shane Perlmutter accepted the application for a common-law peace bond in the case during a court appearance on Friday, when he said the accused demonstrated “unprofessional, unethical and dishonourable” conduct in hiring the investigator.
“What these lawyers did is nothing short of an affront on the administration of justice,” Perlmutter said, adding they “abused” the professional privilege granted to them while participating in a “historically important” constitutional case in Manitoba.
The story also notes:
Both lawyers had already been fined $5,000 by the Law Society of Manitoba and barred from ever practising in the province after a disciplinary hearing by the regulatory body. …
Court heard Carpay hired a private investigation firm to tail officials, including Chief Provincial Public Health Officer Dr. Brent Roussin and then premier Brian Pallister, in addition to Joyal.
Cameron, whose professional corporation had been retained by the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, had proposed using any proof of public officials breaching public health rules in an affidavit to potentially support an argument that the orders were arbitrary, court heard.
What is interesting to note is that Mr. Carpay was (perhaps still is) the President of the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms.
It is a registered charity. In 2022, it had revenue of over $7 million. You see more historical information on the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms.
Will CRA be investigating this registered charity? Your guess is as good as mine. For all we know, they may be under audit or may not be under audit, but the confidentiality provisions of the ITA will not allow CRA to disclose whether they are reviewing the conduct of this charity, its president and its contractor. Perhaps in 10-15 years, we will know what happens. Be patient.
I was thinking that it would be interesting to see what the board of directors of the charity does. Then I noticed that the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms put up a post on their website. I’m not sure if the board of the organization has seen it. It is entitled “Statement: John Carpay innocent of criminal wrongdoing, charges stayed“.
The post says that “Mr. Carpay is already an inactive (non-practicing) lawyer, and will continue to carry out his responsibilities with the Justice Centre as he has been doing since 2010: fundraising, media relations, public speaking, and writing articles and columns.”
What is interesting is that the post ends with “Those wishing to donate to Mr. Carpay personally, to help pay off $20,000 in outstanding legal bills, are welcome to donate at …”. If I understand this correctly, a registered charity is using its resources to fundraise for a non-qualified donee. Not just any non-qualified donee but their own President who is alleged to have been involved with conduct that I believe the court might have described as “unprofessional, unethical and dishonourable”.
Here is some other coverage:
Two Alberta lawyers can’t practise for three years after having Manitoba judge followed (Calgary Herald/Canadian Press)
Update (November 9, 2023)
There was a further article in Canadian Lawyer entitled “Lawyers banned from practice for judge surveillance likely to face more disciplinary actions: lawyer” and here are some excerpts:
Despite agreeing to civil peace bonds preventing them from practising law anywhere in the country for the next three years, one expert says that John Carpay and Jay Cameron will likely continue to face disciplinary actions.
“The picture show isn’t over; there is still possible discipline to come from the Law Society of Alberta,” says William Haight, a lawyer with Phillips Aiello Barristers & Solicitors. Based in Winnipeg, most of Haight’s practice involves professional regulatory law, including acting for regulators or serving as counsel to discipline panels. Haight is also a life bencher of the Law Society of Manitoba and a former chair of its discipline and complaints investigation committees.
…
The latest development in Carpay’s and Cameron’s legal entanglement happened on October 27 in Winnipeg at the Court of King’s Bench, where Carpay and Cameron signed consent orders to be bound by civil peace bonds and subjected to the conditions that for three years, they “must not engage in the practice of law anywhere in Canada” and they “must not contact or communicate with, directly or indirectly, Chief Justice Glenn Joyal.”
The outcome satisfies Chris Vanderhooft, general counsel with the Manitoba Prosecution Service, and the Crown who brought the charges against the lawyers.
“We always have to consider the same two things: the reasonable likelihood of conviction and public interest in any matter,” explains Vanderhooft.
“In this case, it wasn’t really a situation where we no longer had a reasonable likelihood of conviction, but rather, was there an appropriate resolution that we were satisfied would serve the ends of justice and the public interest? It’s not that we didn’t have grounds to proceed – I made that clear in court. But we reached an agreement where we felt the resolution was appropriate. It would avoid the necessity of trial and court resources. And it would achieve the goal of banning these lawyers from practising anywhere in Canada for three years – and that may not even have been a result that was available after a trial if there was a conviction.”
“But when you’re dealing with individuals who have no prior record and no prior history with the law society, the likelihood of sentences involving jail would probably not be realistic,” he says.
Vanderhooft says the three-year ban sends a message about the lawyers’ actions.
“There’s certainly an element of general deterrence and denunciation that is achieved by that kind of disposition. And a consequence of that is that lawyers need to understand that any attempt to have a judge followed or surveilled in any way is going to have to be taken seriously. First of all, it’s going to affect your ability to practise law at all. They were banned in Manitoba by the law society’s ruling, and … they admitted to what they did in front of the law society, so it would have been difficult to not admit the same things in front of the court.
“It does achieve that goal of making sure that people know that if this is the sort of thing they’re going to engage in as counsel, that there will be consequences, and there will likely be criminal charges.”
According to Vanderhooft, the chief justice’s reactions to the surveillance didn’t come into play – it was the actions directed and performed by Carpay and Carson that mattered.
“Intimidation can be proven, even if there was no intent to cause fear. But that fear could have been caused in the circumstances. The Crown accepts that the intention of both accused was not to cause actual fear. But it was egregiously misguided, and that they made a decision that neglected their overriding duty to the court,” he says.
“For any lawyer who would think of such a thing, they owe a responsibility or duty to their client, but their duty to their client is subject to their overriding duty to the court.”