Law Firm Denounces Practice Interference by Police and Prosecutors

Statement from Judson Howie LLP

For immediate release: May 14, 2025

Judson Howie LLP says police 'investigation' of defence counsel for doing their jobs is an intimidation tactic that interferes with the right of their clients to make full answer and defence to charges.

In our criminal justice system, zealous advocacy on behalf of our clients is sacrosanct. The right to be represented by counsel ensures that those whose liberty is at stake are afforded due process, have their Charter rights protected, and can make full answer and defence to criminal charges.

That is why it is with grave concern for the proper administration of justice in our community that today we find ourselves having to address an ongoing effort to undermine our firm's unwavering commitment to advocating for our clients and perform this important legal advocacy.

Information we have received over several months suggests that the Fort Frances Crown Attorney’s Office has – without basis – caused the Ontario Provincial Police to investigate members of our firm for carrying out the routine and necessary defence counsel work of interviewing witnesses, marshalling defence evidence, and preparing witness statements to assist in our clients’ cases.

All of this is standard, lawful criminal defence practice. Defence lawyers are not only entitled to investigate the cases facing their clients, they are required to. Failing to do these things would be professionally negligent. It is telling that all of the cases police are investigating are those in which the charges against our clients were voluntarily withdrawn or stayed by the Crown – presumably, in part based on evidence provided by defence counsel.

We have now repeatedly raised concerns about these actions against our firm with the Ministry of the Attorney General. We have also retained counsel to liaise with Crown counsel in Toronto to clarify any concerns with our practices – all of which exceed our professional obligations. The Crown’s response to our concerns has been to evade and gaslight.

We are steadfast in our view that if there was any question about the work we have done in investigating cases and interviewing witnesses, the appropriate response is to test the evidence in court. It is not to hamper the ability of the defence to carry out that work. In fact, leading legal texts confirm that threatening counsel with criminal proceedings to discourage attempts to interview a witness is unethical.

By doing so, the Crown and police are implicitly sending the message that defence counsel will be personally at risk of criminal sanction and scrutiny simply for performing their core duties for their clients. This strikes us as an intimidation tactic for not taking police allegations at face value, or for assisting our clients to identify favourable witnesses and evidence. We see this as a reckless effort to harass our lawyers, to coerce witnesses into making unfounded allegations against our office, and to interference with lawyer-client privilege, litigation privileged communications, and our professional duties to our clients.

There have now been several occurrences of police over-reach into our practice that have come to our attention. For example:

• Over the past several months, Orillia-based officers with the OPP have travelled to Northwestern Ontario to confront witnesses who have provided sworn statements to our office. Officers appear to have attempted to obtain new witness statements – after the relevant criminal prosecutions have ended – alleging that we coerced or influenced their testimony or to falsely leave the impression with witnesses that communicating with us, as defence counsel, is altogether improper. All of these witnesses are vulnerable persons who are highly susceptible to police pressure and intimidation.

• We have observed what appears to be surveillance of our law office by police. When confronted on one occasion, officers offered the pretence of responding to a 911 call from the building. We had no landlines at the time, and no such call had been made.

• Police officers confronted a junior member of our staff outside of work, in front of others. They pressured this individual to breach our firm’s lawyer-client confidentiality by answering questions about our firm, making menacing statements about the future of their career if they did not cooperate. We are troubled that the Crown may have advised police that this was appropriate.

There is no purpose to criminally “investigate” the fundamental duties of defence counsel other than to intimidate and deter them from carrying out effective and necessary defence work, or to retaliate against them for exposing flaws and oversights in police investigations.

As the largest criminal defence firm in the Rainy River District, with the greatest share of the criminal docket at any given time, we are troubled that these events have unfolded at the same time that our firm has been unable to get the OPP to protect actual victims of crime that we bring to their attention. Police have declined to charge those who threaten physical violence against our 2SLGBTQIA+ clients, those who steal data and proprietary business information from our small business clients, those who try to extort our firm to drop civil proceedings against their friends, and those who perpetrate acts of domestic violence against our clients. We are disturbed by the contrast between police inaction in response to material criminal allegations referred by our firm with their enthusiasm and willingness to waste public resources to harass defence counsel.

We denounce this disrespect of our firm, of our staff for doing their jobs, and of our clients, who are entitled to the benefit of our robust advocacy. More broadly, we condemn any targeted investigation against our firm as an interference with the proper administration of justice. We will not entertain any effort to normalize Crown or police intrusions into the role of defence counsel in a fair criminal justice system.

The right to be represented by independent legal counsel, who can fulfill their professional obligations without fear of reprisals by the state, is vital to our justice system. The steps taken against our office and staff weaken the ability of accused persons to make full answer and defence to their charges.

We will not be intimidated by these tactics, and we will continue to uphold our professional obligation of fearless advocacy for our clients. We are considering all available legal options to secure appropriate redress in the circumstances.

###

Inquiries may be directed to:

Douglas W. Judson

Email: doug@judsonhowie.ca