Page 28 of Client Privilege

Justice Sommers’ expression tightened. “That’s a serious allegation, Mr. Richards. I presume you have substantive evidence to support it?”

“I do.” I handed her the first document. “This is a transcript from yesterday’s hearing regarding the return of my client’s property. Judge Patterson dismissed clear evidence of Mr. Delaney’s non-compliance with a court order—specifically, text messages sent to my client showing that Mr. Delaney still has possession of Alex’s cat, despite claiming in court that the animal had escaped.”

She reviewed the transcript carefully, her frown deepening.

“And this isn’t an isolated incident,” I continued, passing her another document. “I’ve compiled a summary of five cases from the past three years where Judge Patterson has ruled in domestic violence matters involving same-sex couples. In each instance, his rulings deviated significantly from established precedent.”

Justice Sommers raised an eyebrow. “Such as?”

“InMorales v. Kingsley, 2023, he refused to grant a protection order despite documented evidence of physical abuse, stating that ‘mutual combat’ was more likely in same-sex relationships—directly contradicting the Supreme Court’s ruling inR v. Lavalleethat established the relevance of power dynamics in domestic violence cases.”

She nodded slowly, examining the case summary.

“Similarly, inPatel v. Gagnon, 2024, he dismissed evidence of financial abuse as ‘normal relationship dynamics,’ despite Ontario’s Domestic Violence Protection Act specifically including economic control as a form of abuse.”

Justice Sommers set down the papers, her expression grave. “While concerning, you know as well as I do that judicial recusal is anextraordinary remedy. The Canadian Judicial Council has established that disagreement with a judge’s rulings isn’t sufficient grounds for removal.”

“I’m well aware,” I acknowledged. “That’s why I’ve also brought this.” I handed her another document. “This is a transcript from a Bar Association dinner three months ago where Judge Patterson made several concerning remarks about same-sex relationships being ‘fundamentally unstable’ and ‘prone to drama.’ Two witnesses have signed affidavits confirming these statements.”

She took the paper, her eyes widening slightly as she read.

“Even with this, you’re facing an uphill battle,” she cautioned. “The threshold for demonstrating bias under section 6 of the Judges Act is exceptionally high.”

“I understand that,” I said, leaning forward. “But there’s more at stake here than just legal precedent. My client is in genuine danger.”

I passed her the final document—the printed text messages from Marcus to Alex.

“These were sent yesterday, in direct violation of the restraining order. They demonstrate not only that Mr. Delaney still has Alex’s cat, but that he’s using it as leverage to force contact. The phrase ‘come home and all is forgiven’ is particularly telling given the documented physical abuse Alex suffered.”

Justice Sommers studied the messages carefully. “And Patterson dismissed these?”

“He called them ‘ambiguous’ and suggested they could have been sent by anyone, despite the clear context and timing.”

She set the papers down and regarded me with a penetrating gaze. “Mr. Richards, I have to ask—is there a personal element to your involvement in this case? Your reputation for clinical detachment is well-established, yet you seem unusually invested here.”

The question caught me off guard. Was I that transparent?

“My only concern is justice for my client,” I replied, perhaps too quickly.

“Hmm.” She didn’t seem convinced. “You realize that if you pursue this course of action, there will be consequences. Judge Patterson has powerful friends, including several partners at your firm.”

“I’m aware of the potential professional ramifications.”

“And you’re prepared to accept them?”

I thought of Alex—his flinch when Marcus entered the room, the way his voice had gone quiet when reading those texts, his desperate concern for a cat that represented the only uncomplicated love in his life.

“Yes,” I said firmly. “I am.”

Justice Sommers was silent for a long moment, studying me with an intensity that made me uncomfortable. Finally, she sighed.

“In 2015, I presided over a case similar to yours—Tremblay v. Beaumont. A young man seeking protection from his wealthy, influential partner. I followed procedure to the letter, insisted on ‘concrete evidence’ rather than taking his fear seriously.” She paused, her expression darkening. “Two weeks after I denied his emergency protection order, he was found dead in his apartment. Officially ruled a suicide, though I’ve always had my doubts.”

She stood and walked to her window, looking out over the Toronto skyline.

“The law isn’t always equipped to recognize the particular vulnerabilities in these cases, Mr. Richards. The way wealth and social standing can become weapons. The way abuse in same-sex relationships can be dismissed or mischaracterized.”

She turned back to face me. “I cannot directly intervene in Judge Patterson’s courtroom. That would be inappropriate. But I can suggest an alternative approach.”

---