Skip to main content
Open this photo in gallery:

Then-Alberta justice minister Jonathan Denis speaks in Edmonton, in 2014.JASON FRANSON/The Canadian Press

A former Alberta justice minister has been found in contempt of court for threatening to sue a plaintiff in the middle of her testimony in a civil trial.

Justice Doreen Sulyma ruled Wednesday that a letter sent last week on behalf of Jonathan Denis was an attempt to intimidate Dr. Anny Sauvageau while she was on the witness stand in her lawsuit against the Alberta government.

Justice Sulyma said in her decision that the letter made Dr. Sauvageau fearful of testifying plainly and honestly, prompted another witness to beg off testifying at all and raised the spectre of a mistrial in a complex hearing following years of pre-trial litigation.

Mr. Denis was not in court when Justice Sulyma delivered her decision in Court of Queen’s Bench, but listened in electronically.

He is not a defendant in the lawsuit. However, he was justice minister at the time of the allegations being fought over in court.

Mr. Denis’s lawyer, Brendan Miller, said in an e-mail that he and his client respect the court’s decision but plan to appeal the contempt finding.

“Our client maintains that the statement was not directed at [Sauvageau’s] testimony, but rather towards comments to the media.”

Justice Sulyma noted that Mr. Denis, through his lawyer, had apologized to court for the letter.

“I appreciate his apology, although it’s unfortunately to what I find obviously to be threatening behaviour,” Justice Sulyma said.

She added the letter constituted “intimidation to prevent [Sauvageau] from pursuing her right to testify in this trial.”

The parties are scheduled to meet in court April 21 to set dates to pursue what kind of remedy should be sought for the contempt and who should pay court costs.

Dr. Sauvageau, Alberta’s former chief medical examiner, is suing the province for $7.6-million in lost wages and benefits after her contract was not renewed in 2014.

The civil trial crashed to a halt Friday when it was revealed a representative for Mr. Denis had sent the letter threatening to sue the doctor for defamation tied to her testimony.

Both Justice Sulyma and Dr. Sauvageau’s lawyer, Allan Garber, said they interpreted the letter as a challenge to the time-honoured legal custom that someone can’t be sued for what they say on the witness stand.

Justice Sulyma directed Mr. Denis and Mr. Miller to explain themselves. On Monday, Mr. Miller conceded the letter was not well drafted and poorly timed, but said it had been misinterpreted.

Mr. Miller said the letter couldn’t imply Dr. Sauvageau would be sued for her testimony because the letter was sent to Mr. Garber, and Mr. Garber, like all lawyers, knows someone can’t be sued for what they say on the witness stand.

But Mr. Miller noted testimony can be used to help identify and corroborate similar statements made outside court. And that, said Mr. Miller, was what the letter was doing: cautioning Dr. Sauvageau over comments she may be making to media outside court.

Mr. Garber challenged Mr. Miller’s argument.

He said Dr. Sauvageau had not talked to media outside court. And he said if the letter was to caution Dr. Sauvageau about statements outside court, why did it only refer to statements she was making in court?

Justice Sulyma agreed. She ruled the letter was meant for Dr. Sauvageau, clearly accused her of defamation tied to her court testimony and had warned her to “govern herself accordingly.”

“It can only be interpreted as a cease and desist letter directed to [Sauvageau’s] privileged [courtroom] testimony,” the judge said.

All sides agreed there is a history of hard feelings between Dr. Sauvageau and Mr. Denis stemming from her time as chief medical examiner.

Dr. Sauvageau alleges she was forced out of the job as punishment after raising concerns, including political interference in cases and billing on body pickups.

The government, in turn, argues Dr. Sauvageau’s contract was not renewed because she was seeking to exercise authority beyond the scope of her job while displaying questionable judgment and decision making.

Claims from either side have yet to be proven in court.

The trial was set to continue Wednesday.

We have a weekly Western Canada newsletter written by our B.C. and Alberta bureau chiefs, providing a comprehensive package of the news you need to know about the region and its place in the issues facing Canada. Sign up today.

Your Globe

Build your personal news feed

Follow topics related to this article:

Check Following for new articles

Interact with The Globe