Judge Doreen Sulyma ruled Wednesday that a letter sent last week by Jonathan Denis was an attempt to intimidate Dr. Anny Sauvageau while on the witness stand in her lawsuit against the Alberta government. Sulyma said in her decision that the letter made Sauvageau afraid to testify clearly and honestly, prompted another witness to testify at all and raised the ghost of an unfair trial in a complicated hearing after years of litigation. Dennis was not in court when Sulima handed down her decision to the Court of Queen’s Bench, but she heard it online. He is not accused in the trial. However, he was the Minister of Justice at the time when the charges were being fought in court. Dennis’s lawyer, Brendan Miller, said in an email that he and his client respected the court ruling but planned to appeal the contempt finding. “Our client claims that the statement was not based on (Sauvageau)’s testimony, but rather on media comments.” Sulima noted that Dennis, through his lawyer, had apologized to the court for the letter. “I apologize to him, although unfortunately it is something I consider obviously threatening behavior,” Sulima said. He added that the letter was “intimidation to prevent (Sauvageau) from seeking her right to testify in this trial”. The parties are scheduled to meet in court on April 21 to set dates to pursue the type of remedy to be sought for contempt and who will have to pay the costs. Sauvageau, Alberta’s former chief medical examiner, is suing the province for $ 7.6 million in salary and bonus losses after her contract was not renewed in 2014. The civil trial ended on Friday when it was revealed that a Dennis representative had sent the letter threatening to sue the doctor for defamation linked to her testimony. Both Sulyma’s lawyer and Sauvageau’s lawyer, Allan Garber, said they interpreted the letter as challenging the age-old legal custom of not being sued for what they say at the witness stand. Sulima called Dennis and Miller to explain. On Monday, Miller acknowledged that the letter was not well-written and did not have a timeline, but said it had been misinterpreted. Miller said the letter could not imply that Sauvageau would be sued for her testimony because the letter was sent to Garber and Garber, like all lawyers, knows that no one can be sued for what they say on the podium. of the witness. But Miller noted that the testimony could be used to help identify and confirm similar extrajudicial statements. And that, Miller said, was what the letter did: it warned Sauvageau of comments he might make in the out-of-court media. Garber challenged Miller’s argument. He said Sauvageau had not spoken to the media outside court. And he said, if the letter was to warn Sauvageau about extrajudicial statements, why was it only referring to statements he made in court? Sulima agreed. It was ruled that the letter was intended for Sauvageau, had clearly accused her of defamation linked to her testimony in court and had warned her to “govern herself accordingly”. “It can only be interpreted as a letter of cessation and resignation addressed to the (Sauvageau) privileged witness (in court),” the judge said. All sides agreed that there was a history of hard feelings between Sauvageau and Denis dating back to her time as chief medical examiner. Sauvageau claims she was forced to quit her job as a punishment after expressing concerns, including political interference in cases and charging for particulate matter. The government, in turn, argues that Sauvageau’s contract was not renewed because it sought to exercise power beyond its scope of work, displaying questionable judgment and decision-making. The claims of both sides have not yet been proven in court. The trial is set to continue on Wednesday. This Canadian Press report was first published on April 13, 2022
title: “Jonathan Denis Found In Contempt Of Court For Threatening To Sue Plaintiff " ShowToc: true date: “2022-12-16” author: “Rosemary Harvey”
Justice Doreen Sulyma ruled Wednesday that a letter sent last week on behalf of Jonathan Denis was an attempt to intimidate Dr. Anny Sauvageau while she was on the witness stand in her lawsuit against the Alberta government.
Sulyma said in her decision that the letter made Sauvageau fearful of testifying plainly and honestly, prompted another witness to beg off testifying at all and raised the spectre of a mistrial in a complex hearing following years of pre-trial litigation.
Denis was not in court when Sulyma delivered her decision in Court of Queen’s Bench, but listened in electronically.
He is not a defendant in the lawsuit. However, he was justice minister at the time of the allegations being fought over in court.
Denis’s lawyer, Brendan Miller, said in an email that he and his client respect the court’s decision but plan to appeal the contempt finding.
“Our client maintains that the statement was not directed at (Sauvageau’s) testimony, but rather towards comments to the media.”
Sulyma noted that Denis, through his lawyer, had apologized to court for the letter.
“I appreciate his apology, although it’s unfortunately to what I find obviously to be threatening behaviour,” Sulyma said.
She added the letter constituted “intimidation to prevent (Sauvageau) from pursuing her right to testify in this trial.”
The parties are scheduled to meet in court April 21 to set dates to pursue what kind of remedy should be sought for the contempt and who should pay court costs.
Sauvageau, Alberta’s former chief medical examiner, is suing the province for $7.6 million in lost wages and benefits after her contract was not renewed in 2014.
The civil trial crashed to a halt Friday when it was revealed a representative for Denis had sent the letter threatening to sue the doctor for defamation tied to her testimony.
Both Sulyma and Sauvageau’s lawyer, Allan Garber, said they interpreted the letter as a challenge to the time-honoured legal custom that someone can’t be sued for what they say on the witness stand.
Sulyma directed Denis and Miller to explain themselves. On Monday, Miller conceded the letter was not well drafted and poorly timed, but said it had been misinterpreted.
Miller said the letter couldn’t imply Sauvageau would be sued for her testimony because the letter was sent to Garber and Garber, like all lawyers, knows someone can’t be sued for what they say on the witness stand.
But Miller noted testimony can be used to help identify and corroborate similar statements made outside court. And that, said Miller, was what the letter was doing: cautioning Sauvageau over comments she may be making to media outside court.
Garber challenged Miller’s argument.
He said Sauvageau had not talked to media outside court. And he said if the letter was to caution Sauvageau about statements outside court, why did it only refer to statements she was making in court?
Sulyma agreed. She ruled the letter was meant for Sauvageau, clearly accused her of defamation tied to her court testimony and had warned her to “govern herself accordingly.”
“It can only be interpreted as a cease and desist letter directed to (Sauvageau’s) privileged (courtroom) testimony,” the judge said.
All sides agreed there is a history of hard feelings between Sauvageau and Denis stemming from her time as chief medical examiner.
Sauvageau alleges she was forced out of the job as punishment after raising concerns, including political interference in cases and billing on body pickups.
The government, in turn, argues Sauvageau’s contract was not renewed because she was seeking to exercise authority beyond the scope of her job while displaying questionable judgment and decision making.
Claims from either side have yet to be proven in court.
The trial was set to continue Wednesday.
A statement was issued Wednesday on behalf of Elizabeth J. Osler, CEO and executive director of the Law Society of Alberta.
“With respect to any next steps to be taken by the Law Society, it is important that our processes be conducted in a fair and unbiased manner, no matter who the lawyer is, or what position they hold or have held in the past. Our responsibility is to let our processes run their course in accordance with the Legal Profession Act,” it read.
“Our ability to comment on any complaints against lawyers is guided by the act. By statute, complaints and investigations are confidential, starting the minute we receive an expression of concern about a lawyer. Matters only become public when citations are issued, and a complaint is directed to a public hearing.”
This report by The Canadian Press was first published April 13, 2022
With files from CTV Calgary’s Dave Dormer
