By the investigative team at Justice-Quebec.ca
Court files: 705-17-011918-255 / 705-17-012105-258
What initially appeared to be a routine family law dispute has, over nearly four years of proceedings, evolved into a case marked by deeply troubling elements. A father of four-year-old twins, diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder and Tourette syndrome, continues to fight to maintain a relationship with his children, despite several psychosocial reports and professional assessments that were favorable to him. Beyond the parental conflict, however, broader institutional concerns have now surfaced—issues that extend well beyond the traditional boundaries of family law.
The resignation of a lawyer during an ongoing investigation by the Barreau’s syndic, alterations to a court file at the courthouse registry, sworn court documents that appear contradictory, repeated refusals to grant access to evidence, and sustained silence from professional authorities: considered individually, each fact might seem procedural. Viewed collectively, however, these documented events raise significant concerns about how the matter has been handled.
A pivotal moment occurred on December 6, 2025, when the father received an email sent from what purported to be an anonymous address. A digital trace analysis—examining metadata and a Google recovery number—reportedly linked the message to Daniel Goldwater, a seasoned lawyer and well-known figure within Montreal’s legal community. Me Goldwater stated that he was familiar with the file in part because senior lawyers who had previously worked at Spunt & Carin, and who later joined Goldwater Droit, had been directly involved in the matter.
In that correspondence, Me Goldwater did not describe mere errors or ethical oversights. Instead, he used language of exceptional gravity regarding a lawyer who was, at the time, practicing at Spunt & Carin:
“David Chun engaged in acts constituting serious criminal fraud.”
“The firm carried out a cover-up.”
“The Barreau failed to do its job.”
These written statements, preserved in subsequent exchanges, do not represent judicial findings. They are allegations made by a member of the Barreau who asserts direct knowledge of the internal file.
At the center of these claims is David Chun, a lawyer who formally resigned from the Barreau du Québec on February 5, 2025, while he was under investigation by the syndic. Since his resignation, questions surrounding his whereabouts have become critical—so much so that conflicting representations in court documents have created a difficult inconsistency.
On one hand, certain court filings indicate that Me Chun now resides in China, a detail cited to explain either the impracticality or the prohibitive cost of securing his testimony. On the other hand, a sworn declaration filed in the family case states that he was physically seen in Quebec—specifically at a Walmart in Kirkland—on October 11, 2025. Photographs were allegedly taken by an employee of the Spunt & Carin firm, who attested to the sighting under oath.
This contradiction is not merely theoretical; it carries tangible legal consequences. It is referenced in communications with the Directeur des poursuites criminelles et pénales (DPCP), where Me Chun’s absence or unavailability was invoked as a factor in the decision to discontinue criminal proceedings against the father. The prosecution reportedly stated that it lacked sufficient evidence, citing, among other issues, the inability to compel testimony from this key witness.
Despite the acknowledged impasse in the criminal sphere, the family proceedings continue to have civil consequences—still linked to actions and interventions attributed to the same now-resigned lawyer. Meanwhile, the father’s attempts to obtain complete access to his file have encountered a documented series of refusals: denial of full transcripts of court hearings, refusal to provide certain inter-lawyer communications that would ordinarily fall under client file disclosure rules, and the continued absence of confirmation of any formal investigation by the Barreau’s syndic’s office, despite repeated complaints.
Taken separately, each of these developments could be framed as a procedural dispute or a standard legal disagreement. Taken together, however, they paint a far more troubling picture—one in which unanswered questions accumulate, and the mechanisms intended to ensure transparency appear increasingly inaccessible.
Justice-Quebec.ca does not claim to determine criminal or disciplinary liability. That responsibility rests with the courts and competent authorities. Yet a documented and legitimate question remains: how can a system continue to produce irreversible consequences for a family when the central witness cannot be located, when sworn statements about his location contradict one another, and when requests for access to evidence repeatedly encounter institutional barriers?
When expressions such as “serious criminal fraud” and “cover-up” are used by a lawyer of Me Goldwater’s standing, the issue transcends a private dispute. It becomes a matter of public interest.
👉 Justice-Quebec.ca will continue its investigation and will soon publish additional documented findings concerning disciplinary mechanisms, the role of counsel, and the unresolved aspects of this case.
👉 Readers are encouraged to follow upcoming reports and disclosures on Justice-Quebec.ca.
Ajouter un commentaire
Commentaires