Supreme Court to decide if it will hear Iqaluit Crown lawyer’s appeal

Canada’s Supreme Court is scheduled to decide Thursday whether it will consider an appeal from an Iqaluit lawyer of her own contempt of court acquittal.

The Nunavut Court of Appeal ruled in June it did not have jurisdiction to void Justice Paul Bychok’s January 2023 judgment, which acquitted Crown lawyer Emma Baasch of contempt of court but found she failed in her ethical duties to the court.

Bychok heard the case in December 2022. Reading from a written judgment after a short hearing, he called Baasch’s actions a “direct and public insult to the integrity of the Nunavut Court of Justice.”

The contempt of court citation stems from the July 2022 arrest of a man at Iqaluit’s courthouse, just before his assault trial was set to begin.

Bychok, who was to preside over the trial, cited Baasch and RCMP Cpl. Andrew Kerstens over the arrest. He said the two interfered with the court’s duties that day.

Baasch argued she merely provided Kerstens with legal advice.

In his December 2022 ruling, Bychok also acquitted Kerstens of contempt of court.

In her application to the Supreme Court, Baasch argues the Nunavut appeals court judges made a legal error when they concluded they could not hear an appeal from a person on his or her own acquittal.

Her application goes on to say Bychok’s ruling effectively convicted Baasch of “several alleged ethical breaches” which she has been required to report to the Nunavut Law Society.

That creates a “serious, ongoing risk” to Baasch’s ability to practise law, according to the application, because any attempt to dispute Bychok’s findings “may be seen as a collateral attack on a decision that is final, given the Nunavut Court of Appeals decision.”

The application warns that the power to cite for contempt is capable of being a “tool of oppression” unless procedure is followed in a way that is “rigorously” fair.

“The trial judge acted as complainant, prosecutor and judge,” the Supreme Court application reads.

“The judge refused to particularize the conduct said to constitute contempt, denying Ms. Baasch a fair hearing. The fact that her alleged misconduct stems from the provision of legal advice is unprecedented and extraordinary. After a very short trial, the judge read a judgment that had been written in advance of the hearing.”

No contempt hearing should be conducted as this one was, states the application.

Baasch’s lawyer, Robert Frater, declined comment for this story.