Supreme Court won’t hear Iqaluit lawyer’s contempt of court appeal
Iqaluit Crown lawyer sought to void acquittal that included admonishment of ethical duties to court
The Supreme Court of Canada will not hear an appeal from Iqaluit Crown lawyer Emma Baasch, who says a judgment acquitting her of contempt of court cries “conviction” in tone and substance and should be set aside. (File photo)
The Supreme Court will not hear an Iqaluit Crown lawyer’s appeal of a decision that acquitted her of contempt of court last year.
The court announced the decision Thursday morning in a news release.
Emma Baasch, along with RCMP Cpl. Andrew Kerstens, was cited for contempt of court in July 2022 over the arrest of a man at the Iqaluit courthouse right before the man’s trial was set to begin.
Justice Paul Bychok said the arrest was an intrusion on the court’s duties that day. Baasch said the arrest was merely the result of legal advice she gave to Kerstens.
Both Kerstens and Baasch were acquitted in December 2022. But in that decision, Bychok admonished Baasch, calling her actions a “direct and public insult to the integrity of the Nunavut Court of Justice.”
Baasch appealed the decision — despite her acquittal — arguing Bychok’s added assessment of her ethics effectively convicted her of “several alleged ethical breaches” that she has had to report to the Law Society of Nunavut.
That, she argued, created a “serious” risk to her ability to practise law.
The Nunavut Court of Appeal ruled in June it did not have jurisdiction to overturn a person’s appeal of their own acquittal.
In her application to the Supreme Court of Canada, which was filed in August, Baasch argued the appeals court made a legal error when it came to that conclusion.
Her application also argued that the power to cite for contempt of court can be used as a “tool of oppression” unless procedure is followed in a way that is “rigorously fair.”
The application described Bychok as acting as “complainant, prosecutor and judge” in the case against Baasch.
It said Bychok refused to describe in detail what Baasch did that could be considered contempt of court, and that denied Baasch a fair hearing.
“The fact that her alleged misconduct stems from the provision of legal advice is unprecedented and extraordinary,” the application said.
“After a very short trial, the judge read a judgment that had been written in advance of the hearing.”
The application sought to void Bychok’s decision as well as the appeals court decision, but not the acquittal itself.
Baasch’s lawyer, Robert Frater, told Nunatsiaq News in an email he and Baasch are “very disappointed” in the Supreme Court’s decision.
“We believed the case raised important issues worthy of the court’s consideration,” he said
“But we know that the [Supreme Court] only grants leave in a very small percentage of cases.”
What an utter waste of both the Nunavut Court of Appeal’s and Supreme Court’s time.
Paul F. Fraser
Agreed. But let’s be clear on whose fault it was that time was wasted: a pompous judge with a bloated sense of self-importance.
It takes two to tango when it comes to trying to get things up to the Court of Appeal level, let alone the Supreme Court of Canada level.
.
Bychok is not the cuddliest and greatest judge, but the prosecutor is also known to act very strangely and difficult with people in court, and she did interrupt a proceeding in a way that most lawyers know you can’t do.
.
When it comes to their levels of entitlement in court, Bychok vs Baasch is an unstoppable force meeting an immovable object sort of situation!
I fail to see what noble thing Kerstens and Baasch did to get themselves into trouble with the Nunavut Court of Justice. Buddy shows up at Court on an unrelated matter and the two conspirators decided to arrest him before the Court was finished with him. So their gung-ho attempt at showing Buddy how clever they were blew up in their faces and the Court reacted. Why not let the court finish with Buddy then clamp the cuffs on him? No …. better to pull a prank that throws yet another monkey wrench into operations of the Court. Why would a prosecutor ever get involved in such a petty ass boondoggle? So I look at who represented the gifted crown prosecutor at the Supreme Court. How much of this fiasco originated from years of politics with the DoJ? I am not so naive to think this all rests on Boychok’s shoulders.
Buddy was arrested and charged with intimating a witness in the trial he was about to attend. Should justice not be preserved? Should he be aloud to intimidate a witness that is to testify against him in that trial?
This is all public record and easy to find.
Exactly so. Disrespecting the Nunavut court system and feeling entitled to get away with it. A hard lesson to learn but necessary nonetheless.
Funny thing about Bychok is that whenever you read something controversial coming out of the court system, it always involves him as the judge. Just do an online search on this paper and article upon article will pop up where he’s making some inflammatory comment about a lawyer or someone who has the misfortune of crossing paths with him. Why don’t we see other judges acting in this way? Why haven’t other judges become this polarizing personality that this judge has become? When I see one judge in Nunavut as this outlier acting out the way he does, I can only conclude that there’s a problem here, and the problem isn’t with everyone else…….
To Make Iqaluit Great Again – just stop with your bashing of this judge. You obviously have a problem with him, as your comments are always pointing out that he makes, in your opinion, inflammatory comments and the other judges do not do this. Your comments are getting tiring (and boring) to read, time and time again. No-one is interested in your opinion because it is…… just your opinion. The Nunavut Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court both disagreed with you and your lawyer wasting their time with these appeals; accept these realities and move on.
We need more Bychoks in our canadian Justice system.
Hard nosed but fair. No BS in his court.
Thank you Sir for your commitment to justice.
Well said. I tried to give this message the thumb’s up but wasn’t able to.
I see that Mr. Murphy wants to pay judge Bychok a compliment. But, is calling a judge “ hard nosed but fair” really a compliment at all here in Nunavut, and are those two attributes even consistent with one another? The Oxford dictionary defines hard nosed as “ demonstrating an unsentimental or ruthless determination; being obstinate and uncompromising”. I agree with Mr. Murphy that this describes judge Bychok well but I wonder whether the judge himself would like to be seen that way especially in a place where 90 percent of the population is made up of Indigenous people.
And secondly, can a judge demonstrate ruthless determination, be obstinate and uncompromising and yet still be fair? I have to tell you that I kind of doubt it and I would hope that the judge too would agree with me on that.
So I’m not so sure your compliment was really that complimentary. But as always I respect your sincerity.
Whatever you say Karen
White Imperialism at its best.
dont be a looser about it. go to school and be a judge then
If you had a loose tooth, but another that was even more loose… would that one be a looser?
We can start by learning how to spell. 🙂 All your triggers expose the truth.
Many comments are not well informed about our court system and the rule of law. A judge is not immune from criticisms and must abide by the rule of law, he’s not a king in his court but a public servant that is in charge of making sure the law is applied correctly, fairly and with respect.
The issue is important legally as the judge cannot be at the same time the prosecutor, the judge and the party offended which is exactly what Justice Bychok did. He knew he acted unlawfully and acquitted the prosecutor and the officer but with much resentment and that’s quite offensive and unnecessary. But by acquitting both, he also knew no appeal could be filed against his behaviour and decision.
The case is closed now but this whole unnecessary saga should remind judges they they too must abide with the rule of law and keep their frustration in their robe’s closet. The prosecutor and the officer should have advised the judge of the situation as soon as it happened, which could have avoided that mess.
If we did a little more digging and reported all the facts this might be clearer but instead we go for sensationalism that gets views. I get the business aspect but Nunavut deserves better.
these are things that can be found in public record. Lets demand better journalism
What’s wrong with journalism here? How did they get the story wrong? What has been sensational about the coverage of this story? I give NN full marks for the full, fair and objective way that they have covered this story. Frankly, if there has been anything misleading here, it has come in the comments in support of judge Bychok’s actions. These comments have stated or implied that the court of appeal and Supreme Court of Canada support what Bychok did and came down on his side. That is simply not accurate. The court of appeal said that they didn’t have the authority to overturn a person’s appeal of their own acquittal. At no point did that court say that they approved of what the judge had done and why he did it. All the Supreme Court said was that they wouldn’t hear the appeal. Everyone knows that this doesn’t mean that they approve of what this judge did and why he did it.
So good job Nunatsiaq news in covering this sad story and I strongly take issue with anyone who suggests otherwise.
The fact that they have not reported on why the arrest was made. This is a very important piece to show that this was not contempt. The fact that the judge didn’t ask that question and simply believed they were delaying this persons court date.
All NN had to do was look for the defendants name and could see he was charged with intimidating a witness which the court should be very concerned about.
Yes, this story is sad. What is even more sad is the people who think that they know the law better than anyone who was involved in this case, the facts in the public domain and intricacies of this case, and why people behaved and acted the way they did.