The Ontario Judicial Council is set to release an official decision on the judge, Paul Currie
An Ontario Judicial Council panel has unanimously found that there is enough evidence to support allegations that an Ontario Superior Court justice sexually and physically assaulted a woman in 2023.
The panel also concluded that Paul Currie, a regional senior justice with the court, engaged in judicial misconduct when he tried to dissuade the woman, who is only identified as AA, from cooperating with the council’s investigation, delayed surrendering to the police despite an outstanding warrant for his arrest, and repeatedly drove while drinking alcohol.
The results of the panel’s decision are outlined in a Jan. 14 summary released by the OJC, which reviews complaints about judicial conduct. The OJC will issue an official decision once a French translation is completed.
The case dates back to April 2023, when Lise Maisonneuve, then chief justice of the Ontario Court of Justice, submitted a complaint to the OJC stating that Currie had been criminally charged with two counts of assault. The Crown withdrew the charges in June of that year, concluding there were no reasonable grounds for conviction.
The CJC then began investigating Maisonneuve’s complaint, declining to keep its details confidential.
At a hearing of the complaint, a four-member CJC panel considered six allegations, including that Currie engaged in nonconsensual sexual intercourse with AA, physically assaulted her on two occasions, tried to convince her not to provide a statement to the police, tried to dissuade her from cooperating with the CJC’s investigation, and delayed turning himself in to the police despite a warrant on his arrest. The complaint also alleged that Currie’s conduct towards AA was related to alcohol consumption and anger management issues.
After hearing from AA, Currie, three police officers involved with the criminal charges against Currie, and a former Crown attorney, the panel unanimously concluded that the evidence supported five of the six allegations.
While AA’s account of the assaults was “logical, consistent on the material points, and aligned with other evidence in the record,” Currie’s evidence about the same events “was at times internally inconsistent and was undermined by contemporaneous evidence,” the panel said.
However, the panel did not find enough evidence to support the allegation that a phone call Currie made to AA was an attempt to stop her from giving a statement to the police.
Another hearing on an appropriate disposition will take place on Feb. 4.
Presenting counsel for the OJC, who were appointed to prepare and present the case against Currie on the OJC’s behalf, declined to comment on the panel’s results on Thursday because the matter is ongoing.
Daniel Goldbloom, a partner at Goldbloom Ross Cunningham LLP who represents AA, told Law Times on Thursday, "My client did not want a public hearing about one of the worst days of her life. This hearing only happened because Justice Currie insisted on it. Had His Honour retired before it began, the proceeding would have ended immediately.
"As extraordinarily difficult as this process has been, the council's findings have restored my client's faith in the integrity of the justice system, even in cases involving its own members," Goldbloom added.
Counsel for Currie did not respond to a request for comment.
Editor's Note: This story has been updated with Daniel Goldbloom's comments.
