Skip to main content

The Globe and Mail

Man at centre of judge's sex scandal ordered to return photos

Two days after shocking Manitoba's legal world with allegations that he was pressed to have kinky sex with a lawyer-turned-judge, Alexander Chapman was hit with a court order forcing him to return explicit photographs of the jurist.

Mr. Chapman also found himself on the receiving end of a counter-lawsuit, alleging he violated privacy laws and a confidential settlement agreement when he went public with his allegations.

"Right now, I am under a lot of psychological stress," he told a court hearing Thursday, acting as his own lawyer. "I will seek counsel because there are some very important points … with respect to the public's interest in this matter."

Story continues below advertisement

The matter is the sex scandal surrounding Lori Douglas, an associate chief justice with Manitoba's Court of Queen Bench. Mr. Chapman alleges that in 2003, when Judge Douglas was still a lawyer, her husband and fellow lawyer Jack King tried to press him into having sex with her.

Mr. Chapman, who is black, is suing the couple and their former law firm, alleging Mr. King showed him pictures of his wife in bondage from a website dedicated to interracial sex.

"Mr. King continuously attempted to have Mr. Chapman view the most explicit, disgusting, obscene, offensive, pornographic photos of Ms. Douglas on a website and even suggested that Mr. Chapman commit … heinous sex acts with her," reads Mr. Chapman's statement of claim.

The couple "also had ads on the website which read 'make her a slut for total black domination,' " the claim reads.

Mr. Chapman has also filed complaints with the Canadian Judicial Council and the Law Society of Manitoba. Judge Douglas has stepped down from the bench while the investigation is under way, although she remains on the job performing administrative functions.

Mr. King's lawyer, Bill Gange, has said Mr. King distributed and posted the photos without Judge Douglas's knowledge. His client was suffering from depression and "made mistakes," Mr. Gange said.

The matter was supposedly settled in 2003, when Mr. King paid Mr. Chapman $25,000 in exchange for the return of all the photographs and an agreement to never discuss what happened, Mr. Gange told the court.

Story continues below advertisement

But photos ended up making headlines this week, leading to Thursday's hearing.

"Mr. Chapman continues, in a brazen fashion, to flout the terms of the settlement agreement," Mr. Gange said. "Mr. Chapman has proven himself to be a liar."

In the countersuit against Mr. Chapman filed Thursday, Mr. King alleges "the defendant has disclosed and discussed the terms of the settlement agreement" and "used personal documents of the plaintiff without the consent of the plaintiff."

None of the allegations in any of the actions have been proven in court, and statements of defence have not been filed.

Mr. Chapman has admitted in media interviews to signing the confidentiality agreement, but says he came forward this year because he continues to feel victimized.

He also challenges Mr. King's assertion that Judge Douglas did not know what was going on. In his statement of claim, Mr. Chapman said he had met Judge Douglas at a restaurant and she touched him "in an inappropriate manner." She later asked whether he was going to come to the couple's house on the weekend, the claim contends.

Story continues below advertisement

As part of Thursday's court order, Mr. Chapman is required to retrieve any explicit photos he shared with media outlets and anyone else. So far, there is no court order directly requiring reporters to surrender material, but Madam Justice Joan McKelvey of the Court of Queen's Bench said that may be discussed at a later date.

Mr. King's lawyer is also asking the court to have Mr. Chapman's computer seized so that he cannot distribute any more material. The court is expected to hear that argument next Thursday.

The Canadian Press

Report an error
Comments are closed

We have closed comments on this story for legal reasons. For more information on our commenting policies and how our community-based moderation works, please read our Community Guidelines and our Terms and Conditions.