Breadcrumb Trail Links
Bernd Zabel maintained the wearing of the hat was a joke — 'ill-considered' he admitted, but meant, he said, to lighten the mood he expected in the courtroom
Published Sep 12, 2017 • Last updated Sep 13, 2017 • 4 minute read
Photo by Daniel Acker/BloombergArticle contentIn the end, it was his long and unblemished track record of fairness which saved his judicial butt, and that’s just as it should be.
In the modern world, with its penchant for brutal and superficial decisions made in the heat of the second (moments being deemed far too long), it rarely happens.
So give thanks for the four-member panel of the Ontario Judicial Council, which Tuesday released its decision in the Bernd Zabel case, and to all of those who rode to Zabel’s rescue, either by testifying in person or writing letters describing what a good and impartial judge he is and has been.
Advertisement 2
Story continues below
This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.
THIS CONTENT IS RESERVED FOR SUBSCRIBERS
Enjoy the latest local, national and international news.
SUBSCRIBE FOR MORE ARTICLES
Enjoy the latest local, national and international news.
REGISTER / SIGN IN TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES
Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience.
Don't have an account? Create Account
or
, a new way to login
Article content
Article content
Zabel is the Ontario Court judge who, the day after the U.S. presidential nomination, did the inexplicably dopey thing of wearing a bright red ball cap bearing the campaign slogan of Donald Trump (“Make America Great Again”) into his Hamilton, Ont. courtroom.
Photo by Peter J. Thompson / National PostHe wore the hat until the morning break, at which point he returned it to a desk drawer. When court ended early that afternoon (he ran out of cases) and Zabel was leaving, a Crown prosecutor said, “You’ve lost your hat.”
To laughter, Zabel replied, “Brief appearance for the hat.
“Pissed off the rest of the judges because they all voted for Hillary, so. I was the only Trump supporter up there, but that’s okay.”
He later explained — because of course Canadian judges don’t vote in American elections — that he was using “vote” in the colloquial way that some people say they “vote” for the Oilers or the Maple Leafs, and that he’d been the only judge who predicted a Trump win.
Photo by Peter J. Thompson / National PostBecause of the lawyers and judicial colleagues who stood up for him — and the decision makes it crystal clear it is precisely because of them — after serving a 30-day sentence without pay and receiving a formal reprimand, Zabel will remain a judge.
Platformed
Article content
Advertisement 3
Story continues below
This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.
Article content
He easily could have lost his $284,000-a-year job, and ended a distinguished 27 years on the bench as a disgrace; the suspension-with-pay is the second-most-serious disciplinary action that was available, and just shy of a recommendation for removal.
As the panel said in its 25-page decision, “…absent the strong evidence of Justice Zabel’s long record of impeccable service as a fair and impartial judge, the result may well have been different.”
That evidence came from, among others, defence lawyer Michael Wendl, who was in court that morning and said, “It is my view that Justice Zabel was joking. In fact, I was joking with him. It is my view that Justice Zabel’s conduct was likely just a byproduct of the collegial atmosphere that exists in Hamilton…” He described the judge as “the paradigm of judicial deportment.”
Photo by Michael Peake/Toronto Sun/Postmedia NetworkJustice Marjoh Agro, a judge on the same bench, testified at the panel’s hearing last month. She saw him at the elevator as they were heading into court, and told the panel, “I remember that day all too well. I deeply regret not ripping that hat off his head.” But she also described a man who went to bat for women in law and who was consistently respectful to people of all backgrounds.
Advertisement 4
Story continues below
This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.
Article content
Retired Crown attorney Lidia Narozniak also testified. She said she had prosecuted the usual array of tricky cases before Zabel — domestic violence, child abuse, sexual assault — with the usual array of complainants and witnesses of all races, sexual orientations, gender identities and socio-economic levels.
At all times, she said, whoever was before him he conducted himself gracefully.
Since Zabel admitted that by wearing the hat, he had committed judicial misconduct — judges are to be impartial and non-partisan, and ought to be seen that way — the only real issue for the hearing panel was what to do about it.
Recommended from Editorial
Christie Blatchford: The most heinous crime in Canada — judge faces hearing over Trump hat
Judge who wore Trump hat in court said he had no malicious intent
Hamilton councillor calls for removal of Ontario judge who wore 'Make America Great Again' hat in court
To their credit, the five-member panel didn’t minimize the gravity of what Zabel did. But they also held fast to the principle of proportionality and the purpose of such hearings, which is not to punish the judge, but to restore any damage to the administration of justice.
Advertisement 5
Story continues below
This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.
Article content
The test for judicial bias is the so-called “reasonable observer” test — what an informed person, viewing the matter realistically and practically, would conclude.
The headline reader, the panel said, would be very concerned about the judge’s ability to carry out his duties in an acceptable manner.
But “the reader of the whole story of the judge’s exemplary 27-year career, his sensitivity to matters such as race and gender, and the absence of any indication of prejudice or bias, might well see things differently.”
A reasonable and informed member of the public, the panel concluded, wouldn’t believe it was necessary to remove him from office because of a single transgression.
The 69-year-old judge has 30 days to wait before returning to work. It is time enough to buy a few thank-you beers, and send some flowers.
• Email: [email protected] | Twitter: @blatchkiki
• Email: [email protected] | Twitter: blatchkiki
Article content
Share this article in your social network
Comments
Join the ConversationThis Week in Flyers