In September 2010 when Lori Douglas, the Associate Chief Justice of the Manitoba Court of Queen’s Bench, Family Division, stepped down from her post while the Canadian Judicial Council investigated a complaint filed against her involving her husband, prominent family law lawyer Jack King. The complainant was Alexander Chapman, age 45, originally from Trinidad, who retained Mr. King to act for him in his divorce proceedings in 2002.
The inquiry is examining whether Douglas should lose her job because she failed to disclose the matter of the nude photos posted by her husband on the Internet and solicitation of sex partners when she was appointed a judge in 2005 (Blackmail risk kept Manitoba judge from prior appointment, July 27, 2012).
She claims her husband acted without her knowledge. Alex Chapman is the name of the man - a black man – who King attempted to enlist to have sex with his wife, and to whom he showed photos of his naked wife.
The inquiry is currently in a break and will resume later in the year. What's interesting is that the photos in question were not exactly a secret within the Manitoba legal community.
In 2005 when Ms Douglas applied to become a judge, she was required to disclose on the form if there was anything in her past that might embarrass the Judiciary. She did apparently have a confidential conversation with Margaret Rose Jamieson, executive director of appointments with the the Federal Judicial Affairs Commission (JAC) from 2003 to 2009. Margaret Jamieson, now retired, said she recalls Douglas told her at the time about photos “that may have been provided to someone or posted on the Internet.”
Although Manitoba Chief Justice Marc Monnin had opposed Douglas's appointment due to the possible risk of embarrassment and blackmail, he withdrew his opposition in 2005 under the assumption that the photos “had been destroyed and the matter wouldn't resurface.”
Martin Freedman, Manitoba Appeal Court Judge and head of the Judicial Advisory Committee (JAC) in 2005, said that he had heard a few years earlier that photos of the naked Lori Douglas had been posted online, and heard about the sex solicitation, but apparently the original concerns of embarrassment and blackmail had ceased to be, and Douglas was made a judge in 2005.
It appears the selection process itself was conducted in a secretive manner, with no official form completed by Lori Douglas on which she declares potentially embarrassing events from her past, such as the photos online and the sex solicitation. It was only on the belief of certain officials of the JAC, rather than on the existence of potentially damaging material and events, that the final decision was made.
I’m sure most people would agree. Once something is posted to the Internet it can never be guaranteed that it will disappear completely. And it is this that makes the decision to allow Lori Douglas to become a judge at all seem naive, or uncaring of the implications of such secrets having to be kept. In the case of the Lori Douglas, it appears that the Judiciary didn’t disapprove of her sex life at least until it became public.
There are those who believe a person's personal sex life is nobody's business, even a judge. Others feel that such activity can influence their judgment or at least create that perception. We are talking about appearing before a judge whose photos on the Internet depict her nude, with her legs wide open, performing fellatio on a man, urinating on her lawn, or tied up with a dog collar and a chain around her neck.
This a rare case where a judge's personal life becomes public. In most instances we really don't know much about them. Still their job is to push aside their personal views and administer justice. Either you believe in the system or you don't. Yet her claims that she did not know about the activities of her husband may be untrue. This case is fascinating.
