Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'd like to return to the article we referred to last week, which I'm sure the board would rather we not refer to. It's by Brian Hill and Andrew Russell at Global News. In it, some comments were made about a couple of people. The first one was board member Michael Sterlin. With respect to a matter that was before him, a woman who was before him, according to this article, he “asked to see nude photos of the woman to prove her identity”, and “he asked her to reveal where she received the abortion and why she didn’t go to the police.”
The MeToo movement would just go ballistic if that were said today. This was before that movement, but they would absolutely go ballistic about that today.
I'd like you to comment on one of my concerns. I don't mean to cast aspersions on you. As I understand it, there's an investigation, an integrity person who investigates it. These are complaints about the conduct of members. He or she makes a report to you as the chairman. Then you make a decision. The concern I have with this process is that you may or may not like that board member. The question is whether you are independent enough to make such a decision about that person. I say this with all due respect to you or any other chairman.
This board member was required to undergo gender training because of the complaint. That may or may not have been a good decision. The article certainly doesn't think it was. I am willing to bet that those involved with the MeToo movement would think it's a terrible decision. The question I have is whether you have a recommendation to change that procedure.
As you know, the maxim is “justice must be done and justice must appear to be done”. Justice may have been done, but it may well be that justice did not appear to have been done.
My question is whether you would make a recommendation to the committee that a similar process be set up to what goes on with the law society—and you're a lawyer with the Ontario Bar—with its proceedings authorization committee, which has six appointees, or benchers. There's one member of the public, a lay person, who's on it. They make the decisions about the inappropriate conduct of lawyers, or any other complaint about lawyers. That seems to be working. Similarly, with the Judicial Council, when complaints are made about judges, one person doesn't make the decision; a group of people makes the decision.
Could you comment on that, and would you recommend to the committee that perhaps a similar system be set up? Again, I don't mean to insult you, but when you look at the phrase “justice must appear to be done”, you'd see why, if I were a board member and I knew you didn't like me, I'd be worried, but if I were a board member and we saw each other socially, well, I'd figure I was home-free.