Tamara Thermitus, Broken by a Botched Investigation: Quebec Superior Court Quashes Ombudsman's Report Nearly Eight Years Later

I — The Appointment

A distinguished lawyer at the head of a troubled institution

Me Tamara Thermitus has been a member of the Quebec Bar since 1988. She spent nearly twenty-five years as litigation counsel with the federal Department of Justice, specializing notably in human rights and discrimination law. In 2011, the Quebec Bar awarded her its Merit Award and granted her the title of Ad. E. (advocate emeritus). In 2013, she earned a master's degree in law from McGill University, with a thesis titled "Justice Yet to Come," on race and its consequences in the judicial context.

In February 2017, on the recommendation of Premier Couillard, the Quebec National Assembly appointed her President of the CDPDJ for a five-year term beginning February 20, 2017.

From day one, she identified what she described as major irregularities: management positions she found unjustified; complaints sitting five to ten years before even being deemed admissible — what she viewed as a denial of justice; fewer than fifty cases per year being referred to the Human Rights Tribunal while the Commission received hundreds of complaints annually; a toxic workplace; a lack of strategic tools; an absence of accountability and ethics frameworks; and — bitter irony — a lack of diversity within the very organization tasked with enforcing the Act respecting equal access to employment in public bodies.

She decided to reform the institution. That is where everything began to unravel.

II — The Resistance

When trying to change an institution becomes a fault

Within weeks, Me Thermitus questioned the relevance of several legal management positions. Two of the employees directly affected expressed unease. On May 8, 2017, senior managers held a secret meeting about her, where some advanced the idea that she "misunderstood her role as president." A senior advisor in the president's office left. Two other managers went on medical leave.

In April 2017, Me Thermitus retained an outside consultant, Jean-Pierre Hotte, to conduct an organizational diagnosis. The consultant's preliminary report confirmed several of the president's observations — including the lack of justification for the senior advisor position attached to the presidency.

Then, in late June and early July 2017, two disclosures reached the Ombudsman. They accused Me Thermitus of harassing behaviour toward staff, of creating a dysfunctional environment, and of jeopardizing the Commission's mission.

The Ombudsman — who had only just received, as of May 1, 2017, the new mandate to receive disclosures of wrongdoing under the recently-enacted Act to facilitate the disclosure of wrongdoings relating to public bodies — opened an investigation. It would be the office's very first.

III — The Founding Breach

A damning report sent to the Minister before the accused was heard

In the summer of 2017, Me Thermitus was hospitalized. On July 24, leaving the hospital, she was informed by phone that she was the subject of an investigation. Investigators interviewed twenty-seven witnesses between July and November. On August 30 — despite the confidentiality of the process — La Presse published an article disclosing the investigation.

A meeting with Me Thermitus was scheduled for October 3, then postponed to October 12, then to October 31. On October 24, her physician placed her on medical leave. Her lawyer confirmed to the Ombudsman that his client insisted on being heard before any decision was made. Dates were ultimately set for December 11 and 13, 2017.

On November 29, 2017 — before the scheduled interviews — the Ombudsman transmitted to the Minister and Deputy Minister of Justice a 254-paragraph preliminary report concluding that Me Thermitus had committed wrongdoing. The accompanying letter stated that the investigation was "for all practical purposes complete."

Me Thermitus only learned of the transmission by chance, on December 8. She cancelled the interviews and filed a first application for judicial review. A settlement was eventually reached: she withdrew her application, and the Ombudsman agreed to reopen the investigation and hear her version.

Justice Granosik was unequivocal. There was, he wrote, no limitation period, no mandatory deadline, nothing in the climate at the CDPDJ that would have justified rushing a report to the Minister before hearing the principal party's version — particularly in a file involving the holder of a position appointed by the Quebec National Assembly itself.

The Ombudsman cited no precedent in which a draft report entirely ignoring the position of the person under investigation had been transmitted to the final decision-maker. Justice Granosik added, in a footnote, a cutting analogy: it would be unthinkable for a judge to draft and publish a draft ruling condemning the defendant after hearing only the plaintiff's case, then invite the defence to rebut it after the fact.

IV — Round Two, Also Lost

Five days of interviews, 117 pages of chronology, 434 exhibits — and nothing changed

Me Thermitus was ultimately interviewed for five days: April 24 and 30, and May 1, 7, and 8, 2018. She provided investigators with her detailed account. She explained the personal interests of several witnesses whose positions and salaries were directly threatened by the reform she was pursuing. She reported discriminatory remarks she said she had heard directed at her at the CDPDJ. She responded to each of the 254 paragraphs of the first report.

She handed investigators a 117-page document setting out the chronology of events, supported by 79 exhibits. A 60-page document detailing the personal interests of certain witnesses, with 62 exhibits. And a 152-page document responding to the preliminary report, with 434 exhibits. In total: more than 300 pages of analysis and nearly 600 exhibits.

On October 9, 2018, the Ombudsman delivered a new preliminary report — this time 453 paragraphs. The conclusions were identical to the first report. Me Thermitus replied in 34 pages. The Ombudsman refused to share the draft final report with her. It also refused to transmit her position directly to the Minister of Justice.

On November 13, 2018, the final report was issued. Three findings: serious case of mismanagement, abuse of authority, and a serious breach of ethical and professional standards. One recommendation to the Minister: take appropriate measures to prevent recurrence.

Me Thermitus was informed that the report would be tabled in the National Assembly and that she would be removed from office. To avoid the humiliation, she resigned on November 29, 2018. That same morning, in a press conference, the Ombudsman declared that the investigation had been conducted "in a very rigorous manner, respecting all concepts of procedural fairness."

Since that date, Me Thermitus has testified that she has been unable to find employment.

V — The Silence That Tipped the Judgment

Why did the investigators refuse to say why?

Justice Granosik analyzed the second breach of procedural fairness with care. And it may be the most devastating part of the ruling for the Ombudsman's office.

The evidence in this file was deeply contradictory. On one side, about ten witnesses described troubling behaviour by Me Thermitus — vulgar language, inappropriate gestures, questionable decisions. On the other, Me Thermitus presented a diametrically opposed version, supported by hundreds of exhibits, and argued that roughly ten of those witnesses had a personal interest in seeing her fall: their very jobs were on the line in the reform she was attempting.

Yet, Justice Granosik wrote, the final report contained no analysis of witness credibility. No reasons explaining why their version was preferred over hers. No response to the argument that they had a direct interest in lying. The report cited her version, but never said why it rejected it.

The judge went further. He noted the implausibility that the investigators had not merely failed to analyze the credibility issue — they had refused to. The allegation by several witnesses that Me Thermitus used crude language deserved, at minimum, some reflection on the plausibility that a lawyer with a remarkable career had suddenly transformed into so coarse a figure. That reflection never occurred.

This absence of reasoning, the judge wrote, is so crucial that it amounts to a breach of procedural fairness. And, independently, it renders the report unreasonable. Two distinct grounds, each sufficient to quash it.

VI — What the Ruling Does Not Do

The vindication Tamara Thermitus will not fully receive

The scope of the ruling must be understood clearly. The Superior Court quashes the report. It does not exonerate Me Thermitus.

Justice Granosik says so himself, in one of the most painful passages of the judgment: it is not possible, on judicial review, on the basis of written summaries of testimony and various documents, to choose between two irreconcilable positions. Me Thermitus maintains that she was the victim of mobbing by senior managers at the CDPDJ. The Ombudsman's investigators concluded she had committed serious wrongdoing. The Superior Court cannot hold a fresh inquiry in place of the Ombudsman.

What the ruling does, however, is establish that Me Thermitus should never have been crushed by a process that economized on hearing her — nor crushed again by a process which, having heard her, economized on explaining why it set her aside.

The damages action of nearly two million dollars that Me Thermitus filed in May 2022 against the Government of Quebec — for lost salary, lost pension, punitive damages, and legal fees — had been stayed pending this ruling. It will now resume. And a separate component of her original action against the Ombudsman itself — for moral damages, punitive damages, abuse of process, and a public apology — remains pending.

VII — A Lesson for Every Public Body

What this ruling changes for administrative investigations in Quebec

Beyond Me Thermitus's personal fate, Thermitus sends a clear message to every public body in Quebec that conducts administrative investigations — the Ombudsman, professional orders, disciplinary committees, administrative tribunals, disciplinary councils.

Three lessons emerge.

First lesson. A preliminary report containing adverse conclusions can never — never — be transmitted to the final decision-maker before the person concerned has had a real opportunity to be heard. Regardless of deadlines. Regardless of impatience. Regardless of whether the report indicates that conclusions are "conditional" or "subject to" further input. The impact of such a transmission on the decision-maker's mind is, according to Justice Granosik, irreparable.

Second lesson. When the evidence is contradictory, the investigator must explain why one version is preferred over another. Citing the version you reject is not enough. You must give reasons for rejecting it. And where prosecution witnesses have a personal interest in the downfall of the person under investigation, the investigator has a duty to test the credibility of their accounts — not merely report them.

Third lesson. Procedural fairness is not a formality. Justice Granosik writes that "each of the five Baker factors militates in favour of the strictest application of procedural fairness" in a file of this kind — a report with considerable consequences for a person's employment and reputation. The higher the stakes for the person under investigation, the higher the bar for fairness.