Justice-Quebec.ca | Access to Justice |
Today, Justice Catherine Piché of the Quebec Superior Court, Joliette district, rendered her judgment on the motion to dismiss filed by the defendants — the Barreau du Québec, its Bureau du syndic, and the Insurance Fund — in the lawsuit brought by Julien, an autistic father of twins who has been fighting for years to see his children again.
The motion to dismiss was granted in part. The introductory application was rejected. The application for a declaration of vexatiousness was adjourned sine die.
On the surface: the lawsuit is dismissed at this stage. But reading the judgment, a sense of unease sets in — not because of what it says, but because of what it does not say.
A Singularly Unequal Battle
Before analyzing the substance, it is worth pausing on what the court record reveals in its most basic layout.
On one side of the courtroom: the Barreau du Québec, its Bureau du syndic, and the Insurance Fund, represented by the firm Clyde & Cie Canada S.E.N.C.R.L. — one of the most powerful firms in the country, retained by institutions with virtually unlimited resources.
On the other side: Julien. (a fictitious name to protect the children) Alone. Without a lawyer. An autistic, disabled father, representing himself before the Superior Court of Quebec.
It is within this stark imbalance that everything else must be read. When the Barreau du Québec deploys a global law firm to seek the complete dismissal of a lawsuit brought by an unrepresented disabled father, the question of access to justice stops being abstract. It has a face, a file, a number: 705-17-012105-258.
What the Court Record Reveals
The hearing began at 9:16 a.m. and ended at 11:16 a.m. The court record soberly logs the exchanges: filing of Julien's written response, submissions on the motion to dismiss, argument, reply.
The defendants' position, as accepted by the Court: the file was manifestly unfounded and constituted an abuse of process within the meaning of article 51 of the Code of Civil Procedure, with the Insurance Fund and the syndic additionally benefiting from immunities provided under the Professional Code. The Court granted the motion and dismissed the introductory application. The case will therefore not be heard on its merits — at least not at this stage.
The Silence on the Goldwater Evidence
This is where the judgment becomes difficult to understand.
In this case, Me Anne-France Goldwater — a well-known figure in Quebec family law — formally filed a complaint with the Barreau's Bureau du syndic. This step was confirmed by her son, Me Daniel Goldwater. According to information provided, the complaint concerned allegations of serious criminal fraud, a cover-up within the firm Spunt & Carin, and a failure by the Bureau du syndic to fulfill its oversight role.
It should also be noted that in this case, the Goldwater Droit firm retained former lawyers from the Spunt & Carin firm — lawyers who had direct knowledge of the matter in dispute.
This was not Julien alone crying out for justice. It was a seasoned lawyer, at the peak of her profession, who chose to put her word and her credibility on the line.
To this must be added a fact that is now public and critical: Me David Chun resigned from the Barreau du Québec on February 5, 2025 — in the middle of the disciplinary investigation targeting him.
The judgment mentions none of these elements. It does not analyze them, distinguish them, or dismiss them. It ignores them. How can a court conclude that a lawsuit is manifestly unfounded without addressing — even to reject them — the weightiest elements in the file? That is the central question raised by this decision.
The Syndic That Closed the File
Despite the Goldwaters' complaint and the allegations of serious misconduct, the Bureau du syndic closed the disciplinary file against Me Chun — at the very moment he was resigning from the Barreau in the middle of the investigation.
The syndic is the watchdog of the legal profession. Closing a file under these precise circumstances is an institutional choice that deserved, at minimum, to be acknowledged in a judgment ruling on the merits of the lawsuit. It is not.
What the Judgment Does Not Say
Beyond the Goldwater-Chun matter, the judgment is also silent on the investigation by Me Michel Lachance, still without conclusion after 15 months. It does not address the letters of formal notice sent by the Fonds d'assurance responsabilité professionnelle du Barreau to journalists who attempted to cover this story. It does not respond to the repeated denials of access to the file imposed on Julien — neither to his own court file, nor to transcripts of earlier hearings in his cases.
These silences are not minor details. They constitute, precisely, the core of an appeal to come. What the Superior Court chose not to address, the Quebec Court of Appeal will have to hear.
Judicial Time Is Not the Time of Childhood
Julien is the father of twins. He is autistic. He defended himself alone, without a lawyer, against the Barreau du Québec and its institutions before the Superior Court.
The lawsuit has been dismissed. The application for vexatiousness has been adjourned sine die. And the questions left unanswered — about the Goldwaters, about Me Chun's resignation in the middle of an investigation, about the syndic's decision to close the file — remain entirely open.
The Barreau du Québec has its lawyers. The syndic has its immunities. The Insurance Fund has its letters of formal notice to journalists. The system has its delays and its judgments that know what to leave unsaid.
The children do not have judicial time.
The only question that remains unanswered is not legal. It is human: who is protecting these children?
Court record consulted: file 705-17-012105-258, Superior Court, Joliette district, February 25, 2026, the Honourable Catherine Piché, J.C.S.
This website does not provide legal advice. The information published is based on public court documents and verifiable facts. The applicant's first name has been changed at his request.
Ajouter un commentaire
Commentaires