Article content material continued
The three-member disciplinary panel unanimously present in Could that Lauzon dedicated judicial misconduct when she wrote the op-ed.
“We discovered that Her Worship used the facility and status of her workplace to make disparaging feedback about Crown counsel and the bail courts in Canada and, in so doing, did not uphold the basic rules of judicial workplace,” the panel wrote.
The panel additionally discovered that the op-ed “was private and retributive in that (Lauzon) supposed to precise retribution on a lot of Crown Attorneys specifically: these whom she believed had proven her or her workplace disrespect.”
Attorneys for Lauzon argued that the publicity of not solely the backlash to the op-ed, but additionally the disciplinary course of, had “important results” on Lauzon, who didn’t want any additional punishment from the panel. If one needed to be imposed, a reprimand would do, they stated.
However the majority of the panel discovered that Lauzon’s misconduct was deliberate — deliberate and thought out.
“Her Worship was the only creator of the article. She selected a discussion board with a excessive diploma of visibility wherein to precise and disseminate her opinions in regards to the administration of justice and the Crown Attorneys who appeared earlier than her. She testified that she selected each her phrases and the discussion board with intention and function.”
Two of the three panel members advisable removing from her position whereas the third member advisable a 30-day suspension with out pay with a reprimand.