A justice of the peace in northwestern Ontario who tried to help her son with a traffic offence was removed from office because she failed to show remorse for her actions, an appeals court has ruled. Three Ontario Superior Court justices confirmed a decision by the Justice of the Peace Review Council in the case of Anna Gibbon. Gibbon was a justice of the peace in Thunder Bay in February 2019 when her son was involved in a collision. He was charged with failing to yield and faced a fine of $85 and three demerit points. He was eventually found guilty. In such cases, an out-of-town judge and prosecutor are brought in because of potential conflicts of interest. The night before the case was to come to court, however, Gibbon invited the justice of the peace who was to deal with her son’s case to dinner. The dinner was to take place after the case was heard. While the justice was unaware of what was going on, the court ruled Gibbon almost certainly was aware. She “was clearly aware that an out-of-town justice of the peace would be presiding at her son’s trial that day,” said the decision from the Ontario Superior Court of Justice Divisional Court. “And she knew that (the justice she invited to dinner) was an out-of-town justice of the peace.” Gibbon also called the out-of-town paralegal prosecuting the case and told her she didn’t believe “there was a reasonable prospect of conviction” in her son’s case. In the same conversation, Gibbon asked the paralegal whether “she knew who she was.” But when the case came to the court, the justice of the peace saw a sticker attached to the file alerting him that the defendant was Gibbon’s son. At that point, the justice realized he was in a conflict and withdrew from the case. When Gibbon found out about the sticker on the file, however, she became angry. She entered the provincial offences office using her security card and told the clerk who had written the note to call the regional senior justice of the peace. The call was on speakerphone, during which time she asked who was going to “lose their job” for putting the sticky note on the file and she “intimidated the clerk” in the process. The senior justice told Gibbon twice to leave the clerk’s office during the phone call. When her son was convicted on the traffic charge, Gibbon sent a note to the senior justice that said, in part, “his matter would have been dismissed last year if the clerk hadn’t put that sticky note on his certificate he is now losing three demerit points and his insurance is going through the roof. So much for justice for my son.” GLADUE PRINCIPLES A complaint about Gibbon’s behaviour was filed and a review board ruled she had committed judicial misconduct. Most of the panel recommended she be removed from office, but a dissenting judge said remedies such as a suspension, participation in a healing circle and training – among other steps -- would suffice. Gibbon appealed the decision based largely on the argument that the panel hadn’t properly applied the Gladue principles to the case, as they are required to in Canada. But the Superior Court ruled that the panel had weighed those factors very carefully and it was reluctant to impose the harsh penalty. The problem, the panel said, was Gibbon refused to acknowledge that her behaviour was improper. “A lapse in judgment, inappropriate conduct in the heat of the moment, a visceral reaction to deeply held historic distrust of justice institutions – all of these could be forgiven – in the right circumstances – if, in the cold light of day, the moment having passed, the applicant (Gibbon) came to grips with her duties as a jurist,” the court said. “But that did not happen. Right up to the merits hearing – where she gave false testimony – and the preparation for the disposition hearing – where her initial draft apology letters were manifestly deficient – the applicant demonstrated repeatedly that she could not step away from the situation sufficiently to recognize her misconduct.” COULDN"T RECOGNIZE MISCONDUCT “Right up to the time she delivered her first draft apology letters, she believed that her conduct was explicable and justified because she felt her role as a mother was a proper basis for the steps she took,” the decision said. Further, the evidence shows she intentionally invited the justice hearing her son’s case to dinner, something she denied at times but acknowledged at other times. “It would be difficult to understand how the applicant could have been mistaken,” the decision said. “At the very least it reflects a lack of trustworthiness, as a witness, that impugns the applicant’s general reliability.” And when her son was found guilty, she attacked the justice system, continuing a pattern of behaviour that began as soon as he was arrested. “From the outset, the applicant sought to insinuate herself into the proceedings on her son’s behalf,” the court said. “And when, in the end, her son was found guilty, she then (cast) aspersions on the result, implicating the justice system and justice system participants.” Read the full transcript here.
