Judge guilty of misconduct Claimed he did not
kiss, touch court staffers Panel r
<<< Back to About Our Judges
<<< Back to Justice Kerry Evans
Judge guilty of misconduct Claimed he did not kiss, touch court
staffers Panel rejects one woman's testimony
An Ontario judge has been found guilty of misconduct and could lose
his job for making inappropriate sexual remarks and improperly
touching court employees.
A four-member panel of the Ontario Judicial Council has accepted
complaints from six women, who told a public inquiry of being kissed,
having their buttocks and pelvic areas touched and being force-fed
jujubes by Mr. Justice Kerry Evans. For the most part, it rejected
Evans' claims that the incidents never happened or reflected a
misunderstanding of his tactile personality and propensity for "close
talking."
"It is our view that Justice Evans has demonstrated on a number of
occasions a disturbing insensitivity to other person's comfort
zones," the panel, headed by Madam Justice Louise Charron, said in a
26-page decision released yesterday. "On other occasions, he has
clearly crossed the line."
A total of eight women who worked as court clerks, reporters, judge's
secretaries and probation officers at the Barrie courthouse and
nearby satellite courts complained about Evans' behaviour.
Significantly, however, the panel dismissed the complaint of a court
employee whose testimony provided the most dramatic moments at the
unusual inquiry, which took place over 10 days last month.
The woman said that in August and September, 2002, Evans began a
series of escalating sexual advances, which began with massaging her
breasts and culminated with oral sex in the washroom of his judicial
chamber at the Barrie courthouse.
Evans, 54, countered the allegation by filing as exhibits photos of
his genital area, taken by his brother, Tom. He testified that he
started regularly shaving his groin area in 2001 and at the time of
the alleged incidents, had a large rash on his leg, which would have
been noticeable to the complainant.
In its decision yesterday, the panel said it did not find that
evidence "particularly helpful" in assessing the validity of the
woman's complaint, which it ultimately resolved on the basis of
credibility. And in that regard, the panel said "several aspects" of
her testimony raised concerns.
One was her claim that during the time Evans was allegedly assaulting
her, he was also making arrangements for her to discuss a series of
personal problems with a counsellor affiliated with the Barrie
courthouse. The panel said that would be an "astounding" thing to do
if she were a victim of sexual abuse as she claimed.
It is also improbable that the incidents could have happened in the
timeframe the witness described and during regular court hours, when
other judges were constantly coming into Evans' office to use the
fridge or microwave, the panel said.
In the cases of other complainants, however, "the similarity of these
allegations defies the suggestion that all these witnesses are
mistaken or lying about these incidents," the panel said.
Brian Greenspan, Evans' lawyer, said that finding alone could be the
basis for an appeal to the Divisional Court. During the inquiry, the
panel was not invited to find similarities in the complainants'
testimony - yet in its decision, it relied heavily on the existence
of similarities in the women's accounts, he said.
Under normal circumstances, Evans should have been given a chance to
respond, Greenspan said.
"That is an issue we're going to have to evaluate and discuss," he
said yesterday, adding that he and his client are still reviewing the
decision, which they find "disappointing and regrettable."
The panel has yet to impose sanctions, which could range from a
warning to a recommendation to Ontario's attorney general that Evans
be removed from the bench.
One complicating factor is Charron's recent appointment to the
Supreme Court of Canada.
At the time she was appointed by Ontario Chief Justice Roy McMurtry
to preside at the Evans' inquiry, Charron was a judge of the Ontario
Court of Appeal. On Monday, however, she will be sworn in as a
Supreme Court judge.
How that will effect the next stage of the inquiry, and whether a
replacement for Charron will have to be named before submissions on
penalty can take place, nobody knows, Greenspan said yesterday.
A former crown attorney and defence lawyer, Evans was appointed to
the Ontario Court of Justice in October, 1997, and has been suspended
with pay since December, 2002.
When he joined the court, provincially appointed judges earned
$128,623. As of last April 1, they are paid $209,031 annually.
Evans comes from a prominent family of judges and lawyers, many of
whom attended the inquiry daily in a show of support.
His brother, John, is a judge and their father, Gregory, is the
former chief justice of the province's top trial court and a former
Ontario integrity commissioner.
Yesterday, the panel said it was not persuaded beyond a reasonable
doubt that Evans meant to deliberately touch the crotch area of a
court employee's gown while they were chatting in his office during a
recess. Earlier this year, he was acquitted on a criminal charge of
sexually assaulting her.
But his actions were "reckless," the panel said. (Evans said he
accidentally touched her while he was demonstrating how he would
theoretically shoot down a helicopter pilot.)
The panel also noted that another complainant testified that she was
so upset after Evans touched her in her pelvic area that she refused
to go into his office alone any more. An employee in her position
should not have to confront an authority figure - in this case, a
judge - to have her private space respected, the panel said.
Link here
Back to top of Document
