ALBERTA TORY JUSTICE

Court of Appeal quashes contempt conviction for Edmonton lawyer who refused judge's mask order

Hamdi Issawi - Edmonton Journal

Retired defence lawyer Peter Royal, seen in a 2012 file photo. Alberta's Court of Appeal quashed a 2021 conviction that found Royal in contempt of court for refusing a judge's order to wear a face covering.© Provided by Edmonton Journal

Alberta’s Court of Appeal quashed a contempt conviction for an Edmonton lawyer who refused to wear a mask in court last year.

Peter Royal, a prominent defence lawyer who has since retired, was cited with contempt of court during a July 2021 hearing after refusing provincial court Judge Marilena Carminati’s order to wear a face covering due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Another provincial court judge held a hearing the following November, found Royal in contempt and ordered him to pay a $2,000 fine.

In a decision issued Tuesday, the Court of Appeal ruled that the second provincial court judge “had no jurisdiction to entertain a proceeding for contempt before another judge,” and set aside the conviction.

Steven Penney, a professor with the University of Alberta’s faculty of law, told Postmedia the decision relies on a fairly obscure and brief Supreme Court of Canada judgment.

“The Alberta Court of Appeal found there was binding Supreme Court of Canada authority holding that — while in some circumstances a provincial court judge hearing a matter can find someone in contempt at that very proceeding — it is beyond the jurisdiction of a provincial court judge to refer a contempt proceeding to another judge of the same court.”

Superior courts, including the Court of King’s Bench in Alberta, have what lawyers call “inherent jurisdiction,” but provincial courts have limited powers governed exclusively by legislation, Penney said.

Related video: Alberta criminal defence lawyers stop taking new legal aid files in response to provincial dispute

View on Watch Duration 1:44

“According to the Alberta Court of Appeal, the law is clear that — at least as far as the Supreme Court of Canada is concerned — the proper route for dealing with contempt sanctions, where the judge who feels that there may be contempt does not want to rule on it himself or herself, is to refer it to a judge of the superior court.”

While much of the province had lifted masking measures at the time of the citation, Alberta courts continued to require face coverings in common areas and individual judges were left to decide whether or not lawyers were required to wear masks in courtrooms.

Judge Bruce Fraser, who presided over the contempt hearing in November, said at the time that Royal’s refusal to wear a mask was “willfully stubborn and disobedient” given that the lawyer also challenged Carminati by asking her “what are you going to do about that?”

However, Fraser was satisfied that Royal purged his contempt after the latter apologized for the trouble he caused and assured the court that sort of behaviour wouldn’t happen again.

Penney said the Court of Appeal’s decision was based purely on provincial court jurisdiction.

“The appeal does not say a single word about the merits of the decision, whether it was appropriate or inappropriate to find Mr. Royal in contempt,” he said.

Royal is married to Mary Moreau, the chief justice of the Alberta Court of King’s Bench who has been a proponent of masking, virtual court appearances and COVID-related courtroom remodels.

— With files from Jonny Wakefield

Law Society of Alberta conduct hearing for Tyler Shandro adjourned

Anna Junker - 

A Law Society of Alberta hearing into the conduct of Tyler Shandro while he was health minister has been adjourned to an unknown date.


Justice Minister Tyler Shandro.© Provided by Edmonton Journal

Shandro’s hearing into whether he broke the society’s code of conduct was scheduled for Oct. 17-19, stemming from incidents in 2020 when reports emerged he confronted a Calgary doctor in his driveway over a social media post , obtained personal phone numbers through Alberta Health Services to call at least one doctor , and emailed an individual who tried to contact a company operated by Shandro’s wife .

Now adjourned to an unspecified date, the hearing was called to investigate complaints about the three incidents during Shandro’s tenure as health minister, including one alleging he “behaved inappropriately by engaging in conduct that brings the reputation of the profession into disrepute.”

The change was posted on the Law Society’s website . Shandro, a lawyer, served as health minister from April 30, 2019, to Sept. 21, 2021, and immigration minister from that date until Feb. 25 of this year, when he was sworn into his current role as justice minister.

A statement emailed to Postmedia on behalf of Nancy Bains, tribunal counsel at the law society, indicates that either party involved in a hearing may request for an adjournment to the chair of the hearing committee and that the other party can consent to or contest the proposed change of date.

In deciding whether to grant an adjournment, the hearing committee may consider a number of factors, including but not limited to prejudice to any person affected by the delay; the timing of the request, prior requests, and adjournments previously granted; the public interest; the costs to the law society and the other participants of an adjournment; and the requirement for a fair hearing, the statement reads.

“Hearings may be adjourned to any other time or place, on any conditions the hearing committee may impose,” it reads. “In the interest of procedural fairness, it is not appropriate for us to comment any further. The reasons for the adjournment may be addressed in the hearing committee report issued after the hearing is held.”

The hearing will be rescheduled “as soon as practicable for all involved.”

ajunker@postmedia.com