Judges Dugré, Lacoste, Labelle, Châtelain: Insults, Threats and Discrimination in Quebec Courtrooms

Publié le 13 mars 2026 à 18:20

Justice-Quebec.ca | Access to Justice

Judiciary · Access to Justice · Judicial Accountability

Threats made in open court, accommodations denied to a disabled father, remarks that undermine access to justice — and oversight mechanisms that struggle to keep up. A look at six cases that are shaking public confidence in Quebec's judiciary.

The judiciary rests on an implicit social contract: those who judge must embody, through their conduct, the standards they impose on others. When that contract is broken, it is not just one individual who suffers. It is public trust in the entire judicial system that begins to crack.

Judge Gérard Dugré: Starving Rats for a Father in Family Court

The Dugré case remains the most extensively documented in recent Quebec judicial history. A judge of the Superior Court of Quebec since 2009, Gérard Dugré was the subject of a public inquiry by the Canadian Judicial Council involving 60 witnesses over 38 days of hearings.

Among the findings: during a child custody hearing, a self-represented father — referred to as Jérôme by the investigative program J.E. on TVA — had failed to produce certain documents. The judge's response: "You could be held in contempt of court. That means we could send you to reflect for a few moments in a cell. We have two kinds: one for women, where there are little mice that aren't fed, and one for men, where there are rats — and they're starving."

Jérôme left that proceeding devastated. "My whole life was at stake," he told J.E. He felt treated like a nuisance — not like a person seeking justice.

This was not an isolated incident. The inquiry committee examined five separate files, documenting an "aggressive and unpleasant attitude," "moralizing and guilt-inducing" remarks, "condescension and contempt," and a flagrant violation of the audi alteram partem principle — the obligation to hear both sides. In another file, the Chief Justice of the Superior Court himself had found that the judge's remarks "have no place in a courtroom."

In July 2022, the inquiry committee unanimously recommended Judge Dugré's removal. In December 2022, the Canadian Judicial Council endorsed that recommendation, describing his conduct as "shocking" and constituting intimidation. The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed his appeals. Yet Judge Dugré continued to fight — at public expense. According to J.E., the total bill has now exceeded five million dollars in maintained salary and publicly funded legal defence.

Judge Pierre Labelle: "Maybe It's Because You Don't Deserve One"

The next three cases involve Julien — a pseudonym used on this site to protect his children — an autistic father with Tourette syndrome and ADHD who has been fighting for four years to maintain a relationship with his children.

During a family law hearing, Julien explained to Judge Pierre Labelle that he had no lawyer to represent him, despite being eligible for legal aid. The judge's response, as recorded in the official transcripts of the court proceedings: "Maybe it's because you don't deserve one." The judge then proceeded with the hearing without ensuring that the litigant could participate on an equitable basis.

These remarks do not rest solely on Julien's testimony — they appear in the official transcripts of the court proceedings. Judge Labelle is now refusing access to those same transcripts. That question is the subject of ongoing legal proceedings. Justice-Quebec.ca will report as soon as a decision is rendered.

For a neurodivergent, self-represented father already confronting the complexity of the legal system, such a response is not merely a slip of the tongue. It sends a message about the value placed on his presence in that room.

Judge Chantal Châtelain: "Being Right Doesn't Mean You'll Win"

In Julien's case, coordinating judge Chantal Châtelain of the Joliette courthouse also made remarks worth reporting. In a context where procedural fraud had been alleged — including a lawyer's mid-proceeding withdrawal and documented allegations of court document manipulation raised by lawyer Anne-France Goldwater — Judge Châtelain reportedly told Julien: "Just because you're legally right doesn't mean you're going to win."

These remarks are supported by the official transcripts of the court proceedings, in addition to Julien's own testimony.

If the intent was to temper the expectations of a litigant unfamiliar with the vagaries of law, the effect is the opposite: it validates the notion that winning in court is not necessarily tied to being right. For a father facing what he describes as systemic fraud, that phrase sounds less like a warning and more like a confirmation.

Judge Lacoste: Accommodations Denied, $25,000 Fine and a Vexatious Litigant Designation

Julien, due to his autism and Tourette syndrome, requested reasonable accommodations during a hearing — a measure provided for under Quebec's Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. Those accommodations were denied by Judge Lacoste.

These facts are not based solely on Julien's testimony — they are documented in the official court records. Following that same proceeding, Julien was hit with a $25,000 fine, a vexatious litigant designation, and community service. That judgment is currently under appeal: the hearing is scheduled for March 16, 2026. Justice-Quebec.ca will cover the hearing and publish a follow-up once a decision is rendered.

The denial of accommodation, in this context, is not merely a procedural failing. It raises a question of discrimination based on disability in access to justice — a question that goes beyond this individual case and challenges the accessibility practices of Quebec courts as a whole.

Judge Denise Descôteaux: A Fourth Proceeding in Less Than Ten Years

Judge Denise Descôteaux of the Court of Quebec in Val-d'Or illustrates on her own the limits of the current disciplinary system. She has already been the subject of three formal reprimands from the Quebec Judicial Council for repeated conduct: an "unnecessarily aggressive" tone, lack of courtesy, physical gestures on the bench — including hitting the table — and what the Council described as a "gross ignorance" of fundamental legal principles, accompanied by a loss of "control over her thoughts and words."

In December 2025, a fourth disciplinary proceeding was opened against her, this time for disparaging court staff. Four proceedings in less than ten years. The underlying question must be asked: at what point do ethics oversight mechanisms stop being corrective and become simply an accompaniment to misconduct?

Judge Denis Paradis: An Inquiry into Sexually Suggestive Conduct

On February 10, 2026, the Quebec Judicial Council ordered a formal inquiry into Judge Denis Paradis of the Criminal and Penal Chamber of the Court of Quebec, who sits primarily at the Percé courthouse.

The complaint was filed by a manager with the Ministry of Justice. It alleges sexually suggestive gestures and remarks made in a professional context involving an institutional power imbalance. In his submissions to the Council, Judge Paradis acknowledged certain gestures and remarks, admitting they were inappropriate, while maintaining he had no inappropriate intent.

The Council found that these facts raised serious questions regarding compliance with the Code of Judicial Ethics, particularly Article 8, which requires judges to exercise restraint, courtesy and dignity. Judge Paradis continues to sit during the proceedings. A case management conference is scheduled for May 13, 2026.

What These Cases Reveal

These six situations, varied as they are in nature and severity, converge on a single finding: judicial power is not immune to failures of dignity, fairness and integrity.

Oversight mechanisms exist. The Quebec Judicial Council supervises judges appointed by the provincial government. The Canadian Judicial Council handles judges appointed by the federal government. But these bodies are seized after the fact, on complaint, often years after the events in question. And in several of the cases documented here, the litigants who experienced the conduct at issue had neither the resources, the legal representation, nor the knowledge of the system to file an effective complaint.

The question is not to presume bad faith on the part of the judiciary as a whole. The vast majority of judges carry out their duties with rigour and humanity. The question is to ensure that exceptions are dealt with the same rigour demanded of litigants themselves — and that the public is not left indefinitely footing the bill.

To Follow — March and April 2026

Two cases directly linked to Julien's situation will be heard on appeal in the coming weeks.

March 16, 2026: The judgment issued against Julien — vexatious litigant designation, $25,000 fine and community service imposed on this autistic father — will be heard on appeal. Justice-Quebec.ca will cover the hearing and publish a follow-up once a decision is rendered.

April 2026: In a related case, a civil lawsuit against the law firm Spunt & Carin and lawyer David Chun — who resigned from the Barreau du Québec while a syndic investigation was underway — will also be heard on appeal. Justice-Quebec.ca will follow this case.

Ajouter un commentaire

Commentaires

Il n'y a pas encore de commentaire.