It begins with a father. Julien (name changed to protect the children's identity), autistic, living with Tourette syndrome, was mowing his lawn on an ordinary morning. Two hours later, he was handcuffed, surrounded by an armoured vehicle, officers in tactical gear, canine units and bomb disposal technicians. No explosives were found. No arsenal. The most serious charges were dropped. He was acquitted.
But his children were not returned to him.
What starts as a family tragedy reveals itself, over the course of four years of proceedings, as something far darker: a case where lawyers resign in the middle of disciplinary investigations, where a key witness vanishes somewhere between China and a Walmart in Kirkland, where the Barreau closes its files despite allegations of serious criminal fraud, and where the institutions responsible for protecting the public seem to endlessly pass the buck.
The Judicial Machine
From the very start of his separation, Julien faced a system that, he says, interpreted each of his neurological symptoms as signs of instability. A judge, Pierre Labelle, allegedly told him that "a person like him" did not deserve to have a lawyer — forcing him to represent himself despite his disability. Another judge, Stéphane Lacoste, denied him his reasonable accommodations and his support person during hearings, as confirmed by the minutes of November 18, 2025.
But the most chilling episode takes place at the courthouse, where his legal aid lawyer, Me Bianca Vigneault, allegedly convinced him that the emergency hearing had been cancelled — when in fact it was very much going ahead. On site, isolated in a cubicle, he was presented with a voluminous document drafted by opposing counsel, Me David Chun, describing him as a danger. When he refused to sign, his lawyer allegedly told him: "Listen, a person like you doesn't deserve to have children. Either you sign, or we've already made sure you'll never see your children again."
These statements are alleged and have not been confirmed by the parties involved. But for Julien, they symbolize an irreversible turning point: "I understood that the fight was no longer about the facts, but about the image."
The Lawyer Who Vanishes
At the heart of the case: Me David Chun, a lawyer at Spunt & Carin, in Westmount. His name appears throughout the proceedings — as the drafter of documents, as the central figure in allegations of collusion, as a potential witness in criminal files.
On February 5, 2025, he officially resigned from the Barreau du Québec — in the middle of an investigation by the Office of the Syndic. Under disciplinary law, cooperation with such an investigation is an ethical obligation. Resigning during a pending investigation therefore raises, in itself, serious questions.
But the case takes on a Kafkaesque dimension when his location becomes the subject of two incompatible versions filed before separate judicial bodies. On one side, the firm's defence — funded by the Bar's professional liability insurance fund — maintains that he now resides in China, making his testimony impossible. On the other, a sworn statement signed by Jewel Anna Harrison, a paralegal at Spunt & Carin, states that she personally saw him at the Walmart in Kirkland on October 11, 2025, with photographs to support the claim.
One of these two versions is false. No authority has ruled on the matter.
And this contradiction is not without consequence: the DPCP, through Me Flavie Picard, stated in July 2025 that there was insufficient evidence to proceed to trial — due in part to the unavailability of this key witness. The criminal charges against Julien were dropped. But the family proceedings continue to produce their effects — still based on acts carried out by the lawyer who is now untraceable.
The Firm, the Rivalry, and the Denunciation from Within
Spunt & Carin is no ordinary firm. It was born in the orbit of Goldwater Droit, the best-known family law firm in Québec. Several of its lawyers — Me Alexander Carin, Me Eric Kirshner, Me Ian Solloway, and David Chun himself — have professional roots at Goldwater. A natural rivalry developed between the two firms in the upscale neighbourhood of Westmount.
But in the wake of David Chun's resignation and the civil suits that followed, something shifted. Kirshner and Solloway — two senior figures — returned to Goldwater Droit. Support staff followed. And it is from within that same Goldwater firm that the most explosive denunciation in the case emerged.
On December 6, 2025, Julien received an email from a seemingly anonymous address. A digital traceability analysis would attribute its origin to Daniel Goldwater, an experienced lawyer. The message does not speak of errors or shortcomings. It speaks of "serious criminal fraud," of a "cover-up," and of the Bar's inaction: "The Barreau didn't do its job."
These statements are allegations, not judicial conclusions. But they come from a member of the Bar who claims to know the case from the inside — because lawyers who had worked at Spunt & Carin, now at Goldwater, had reportedly shared the details with him.
Me Anne-France Goldwater, one of Québec's most prominent lawyers, reportedly submitted a formal complaint to the Barreau regarding these facts.
The response from the Office of the Syndic, signed by Me Guylaine Mallette, assistant syndic, amounts to a few lines: "a decision has been rendered… this file is closed."
A System That Closes In on Itself
Julien attempted to file complaints regarding police ethics in Repentigny. Officers refused to register his complaints. In audio recordings available on his website, he can be heard being told: "You're just here to piss us off," "You have facial tics, you seem nervous, you look like a drug addict" — even as he was explaining that he suffers from Tourette syndrome.
The Repentigny police refuse to investigate related criminal files due to a conflict of interest. The DPCP refuses to prosecute because the local police cannot investigate. The file is transferred to Montréal because the individuals involved are judicial actors within the district of Joliette. The AMF has acknowledged receipt of a complaint regarding the governance of the Bar's insurance fund. No public intervention.
Julien's own lawyers have troubling histories: Me Michel Lachance is reportedly still the subject of a disciplinary investigation; Me David Chun resigned from the Bar in the middle of one.
Every door leads to another closed door.
What Remains
Julien is still appealing. His twins are now 4 years old. The psychosocial reports and the DPJ assessments were in his favour, he says. No one has been sanctioned. The key witness remains untraceable.
"A single word can mobilize an army against you," he says.
This case raises questions that go far beyond his personal situation: what happens when a lawyer can resign during a pending investigation without any public consequence? When two contradictory versions of the same fact coexist under oath without any authority ruling on the matter? When the fund meant to protect the public finances the defence of the targeted firm and sends cease-and-desist letters to the journalists covering the story?
The question is no longer whether the system failed in one particular case.
The question is how many similar cases this same system has produced in silence.
All allegations reported in this article are based on court documents filed in cases 705-17-011918-255 and 705-17-012105-258, correspondence from the Office of the Syndic, an AMF complaint acknowledgment (no. 2534737679), sworn statements and exchanges with the DPCP. Not all allegations have been the subject of final judicial conclusions. All individuals mentioned benefit from the presumption of innocence.
Sources: Spunt & Carin · Barreau du Québec · Office of the Syndic · Notice of resignation · FARPBQ · AMF · Wikipedia — Goldwater · Superior Court · CDPDJ
Ajouter un commentaire
Commentaires