The+Public+Interest

=**THE PUBLIC INTEREST: WHAT IT IS AND WHAT IT ISN'T**=

Are a couple’s salacious photos on a pornography site any concern to the public? According to [|CBC], they are, particularly when the woman involved is Judge Lori Douglas, Associate Chief Justice of the Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba (Family Division) and a member of the Canadian Judicial Council, the watchdog for Canadian judges.

Journalism graduate students in a Ryerson University media law and ethics course examined this topic in class on Sept. 24, 2010 when they presented both sides of the debate in a mock trial.

Jack King, 64, is Douglas's husband and a Winnipeg family lawyer. Alexander Chapman, 44, is the complainant in the real-life trial. In 2003, Chapman retained King to handle his divorce papers when, allegedly, King began soliciting him to have sex with his wife. King showed him about 30 explicit photos of his wife from an interracial porn site.

Once his divorce was finalized, Chapman filed a complaint against King’s law firm, Thompson Dorfman Sweatmen, and settled for $25,000 in exchange for his silence. King left the firm to seek help shortly thereafter, citing emotional problems as a reason for his unprofessional conduct. Seven years later, Chapman is suing Douglas and King and their respective law firms at the time for $67 million.

CBC’s decision to discuss the nature of the photos related to the case was hotly debated in the classroom where the lines between the public sphere and private life were blurred.

“[When] the business of the bedroom is posted on the Internet, and a lawyer and a judge are involved, it becomes the public’s business,” said Ramya Jegatheesan who was representing CBC’s position in the mock trial.

Douglas’s supposed ignorance of the photos raises the question, is she the victim of her husband’s indiscretion or does she lack the credibility to be a judge in family court having posed for the photos in the first place?

CBC’s Cecil Rosner, managing editor of CBC Manitoba, issued a statement regarding its editorial decision: “The issues here deal with a lawyer's duty to a client; the duty of other legal professionals to report matters of concern to the relevant professional associations; the duty of a potential judge to disclose pertinent matters in advance of his or her selection; and the responsibilities of judicial selection committees as they make their choices."

It is unlikely she would have been appointed to the Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba had she disclosed this information, according to CBC's legal experts.

The class debated the topic under the watchful eyes of media lawyer Brian MacLeod Rogers and Ryerson professor Ivor Shapiro, both course instructors.

“This isn’t just a matter of disclosure, it’s an issue that’s been framed as to whether she’s properly disclosed something in the process of her appointment as she was required,” MacLeod Rogers said.

Discussing the photos, however damaging to the judge’s reputation, was necessary because “productive debate is dependant on the free flow of information,” said MacLeod Rogers. It is the the court’s job to render the law consistent with Canadian Charter values, MacLeod Rogers said. “ The word reputation is not in the Charter but security of person is.”

CBC could use the responsible communication in matters of public interest defence in Douglas’s lack of disclosure since she is a public figure and a pillar of our judicial system, according to MacLeod Rogers.

Wayne MacKay, a law professor at Dalhousie University, believes the issue is a matter of public interest when he told CBC, “In spite of the fact that it's obviously private — and judges still do have the right to a private life — that kind of picture when it's public, and that kind of information when public, I think it would clearly bring the judicial system or the administration of justice in question, or at least in some people's mind diminish the court's image."

Douglas declined to comment to CBC saying it was a private matter. She has since been relieved of her duties as a sitting justice following the formal complaint made to the Canadian Judicial Council regarding the alleged incident from 2003.

Comments: include component="comments" page="The Public Interest" limit="25"