In May 1994, a two-member disciplinary committee of the Quebec Bar Association considered twenty-three misconduct charges that originated in complaints filed against Belhassen by Finney in 1993. It concluded that he had been waging a “judicial guerrilla war” against her. It found that his bankruptcy proceedings against Robert Francis had been initiated “for the sole purpose of harming this colleague and his client.” It ruled that Belhassen’s suit against Badr, claiming unpaid legal fees, was “manifestly unreasonable.” The committee described Belhassen’s conduct as “seriously compromising the public good” and suspended his right to practise pending further investigation, promising a final decision by the end of June.8 When he was suspended in 1994, Belhassen, forty-seven years old, had been a member of the bar since 1978. The first complaint about his behaviour had been made in 1979.
Belhassen quickly challenged the committee’s ruling before the Quebec professions tribunal. In January 1995, the tribunal upheld the committee’s decision. In February, Belhassen was able to get the next disciplinary hearing, intended to resolve finally the matter of his disbarment, put off until September 5. Belhassen told the disciplinary committee, “I know that it’s very important to get me disbarred completely, but I have other obligations.” Christina Finney expressed outrage at the delay.9 In September, the disciplinary proceedings began again. Geoff Baker of Montreal’s Gazette reported:10
Belhassen, representing himself without a lawyer, had to be warned repeatedly about his tone, tactics and attitude by the two lawyers presiding at the hearing.
… When Belhassen asked that Finney be excluded from proceedings Thursday because she is to be called as a witness later, she attempted to speak but was told, rather abruptly, to leave the room. She could later be heard shouting in a corridor as the Bar’s prosecutor, Jacques Fournier, tried to calm her down.
Finney has expressed concern that Belhassen is trying to delay the proceedings long enough to get the charges dropped because the case is taking too long.
In an interview Thursday night, Belhassen said he has not ruled out that tactic.
A few days later, Albert Janin, one of the two members of the disciplinary committee, discovered that for technical reasons he was not qualified to hear the case, and resigned. Adjournment followed adjournment. The fight between Belhassen and Finney continued in intensity. In October and November 1996 Belhassen sent bailiffs to Finney’s house on eleven occasions, armed with seizure orders and bills for court costs from earlier litigation. Most of these bills were later thrown out by the court. The file before the disciplinary committee grew to thirty-seven volumes, with 8,636 pages. In April 1998, eight years after Finney first complained to the Quebec Bar Association, and one year after the disciplinary hearings ended, the bar association reached a final decision: Belhassen was guilty of misconduct and was permanently disbarred. His appeal to Quebec’s professions tribunal was unsuccessful. They say that he now sells real estate. Late in 2005, Christina Finney reported that she saw him on the street, and he looked “very prosperous.”
Eric Belhassen may have been disbarred, but Christina Finney was not done. She now turned her wrath on the Quebec Bar Association, its director general, Pierre Gauthier, and two of its “syndics” (benchers). She began a lawsuit against all of them in January 1996, arguing that the bar had been negligent in not protecting her from Belhassen. She said that she had been forced to take early retirement because of stress, and that her finances had been destroyed by Belhassen’s legal harassment. She sought almost a million dollars in damages. The French-language trial took place in September 1998, with Finney representing herself, often accompanied by her mother in a wheelchair offering moral support. (Finney’s French is not good; later she said the bar exploited her language difficulties, and the bar’s lawyers laughed at her during the trial and made disrespectful jokes about her in French.) During the trial, counsel for the bar denied wrongdoing, but also cited the immunities granted by the legislation that governs the professions in Quebec. In December, Justice Jean Normand delivered his verdict.11 Because of the immunity granted to the bar by section 193 of Quebec’s Professional Code,12 Finney had to prove intentional wrongdoing, which, said Justice Normand, she had failed to do.
The Quebec Court of Appeal heard Finney’s appeal in September 2001. A newspaper account described her presentation as “impassioned, emotional—sometimes angry.”13 Giving its judgment in June 2002, the Court of Appeal said that Belhassen posed a threat to the public, and the bar knew that this was the case. It found that the time that elapsed between Finney’s complaints in 1993 and action by the bar was inexcusable. The bar, said the court, had failed to protect the public, as required by section 23 of the Professional Code, which states, “The principal function of each corporation shall be to ensure the protection of the public,” and accordingly did not enjoy s. 193 immunity. Christina was awarded $25,000 for “moral damages.”14 The Quebec Bar Association appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada.
The Supreme Court considered the case in February 2004. It was now almost twenty years since Samir Badr moved in with Christina Finney. This time Finney was represented by Guy Pratte, eminent counsel and son of a former Supreme Court of Canada judge.15 Justice LeBel delivered the court’s judgment on June 10.16 He began:
An independent Bar composed of lawyers who are free of influence by public authorities is an important component of the fundamental legal framework of Canadian society. In Canada, our tradition of allowing the legal profession to regulate itself can largely be attributed to a concern for protecting that independence and to lawyers’ own staunch defence of their autonomy. In return, the delegation of powers by the State imposes obligations on the governing bodies of the profession, which are then responsible for ensuring the competence and honesty of their members in their dealings with the public.… Subject to the limits defined by the applicable legal rules and principles, a law society will be liable for a breach of this supervisory duty. Such cases are indeed rare, but one has arisen in this instance.
Justice LeBel emphasized that, under the Quebec Professional Code, the primary objective of professional organizations is to protect the public, and that the monopoly enjoyed by lawyers was not created for private purposes, but rather to recognize their social importance. That monopoly, he said, carried with it the obligation to monitor competence and supervise conduct. And then:
The Court of Appeal passed harsh judgment on the conduct of the Barreau, particularly in respect of its lack of diligence and its slowness to act, not to say its lack of action, in its handling of McCullock-Finney’s complaints. In my view, that judgment was justified. The attitude exhibited by the Barreau, in a clearly urgent situation in which a practising lawyer represented a real danger to the public, was one of such negligence and indifference that it cannot claim the immunity conferred by s. 193. The very serious carelessness it displayed amounts to bad faith, and it is liable for the results.
After the judgment was announced, Finney said, “It’s really something … for someone to get the 20,000-member Barreau single-handedly.”17 She kept the $25,000 the Court of Appeal awarded; the Supreme Court ordered the bar to pay her reasonably incurred costs of the litigation. In an editorial on June 15, Montreal’s Gazette commented, “This unambiguous ruling … should make all of the provinces 40-plus professional organizations start combing through their files for any incompetent or criminal members they may have failed to deal with.… Professional bodies are not unions or social clubs. They are legally obliged to uphold professional standards and to monitor their members’ compliance with these standards.” The decision in favour of Finney was noticed outside Quebec. Beppi Crosariol, writing in The Globe and Mail on August 16, 2004, said that it “has sent a chill through the corridors of the provincial law societies that police the conduct of lawyers.”18 Christina Finney was something of a hero.
Still she was not finished. In January 2001, Finney had commenced a new action, alleging “abuse of power,” against th
e Quebec Bar Association, its director general Pierre Gauthier, and the lawyers who represented the bar in the earlier trial (Jean Saint-Onge and the firm of Lavery, deBilly). She sought $3.5 million dollars in damages—a million dollars for loss of enjoyment of life, $500,000 for attacks on her honour, and $2 million in punitive and exemplary damages.19 Finney alleged that Justice Normand (the trial judge) was biased because of his earlier involvement with the Quebec Bar Association, particularly as bâtonnier of Trois-Rivières (a bâtonnier is the elected representative of the local bar); that documents under court seal (Belhassen’s medical records) were improperly produced by lawyers for the bar; and that she was denied the services of an interpreter.20
The action against the bar association and the other defendants was finally tried in Quebec Superior Court in January 2006.21 The trial took nine days, with Finney—once again—representing herself. Justice Carole Hallée gave her thirty-one-page judgment on March 14. She rejected all Finney’s accusations and awarded costs against her. She said that the Supreme Court of Canada had already decided the relevant issues. Justice Hallée, nonetheless, went on to comment on the particulars of Finney’s accusations in order, she said, to remove any doubt. On the question of improper production of documents under seal, after a detailed analysis of what happened, the judge said that Saint-Onge and Lavery, representing the bar, had behaved in an exemplary fashion. On the language issue, the judge said the result would have been no different had the trial been held in English. Allegations about possible bias of the trial judge were rejected out of hand. Finney, said the judge, had made her fight with the legal profession a full-time job. She claimed to want a full and fair hearing, but she wanted it only according to her own agenda. She blamed all her troubles and worries on her fight and on persecution by lawyers. But, said the judge, only she can stop it all.
At the end of the trial, leaving the courtroom and realizing that things had not gone well, Finney shouted out, “See you all in the Court of Appeal.”22
WHY DOES CHRISTINA FINNEY DO IT? “I want justice,” she told me just before the January 2006 legal proceedings began. “I am protecting Canadian democracy and the system of justice. As for the bar, I was the first one to break into that little club of theirs. They don’t intimidate me,” she says. Then she adds, “Although, sometimes I do get a little scared. There are days when I feel very depressed. My children tell me, it’s enough, I should stop now. But, you know what? I want justice. That’s what I want. I’m not giving up.”23
FIFTEEN
THE LAST HOPE
Angie Codina and Harry Kopyto
Angie Codina and Harry Kopyto were lovers. They were also each other’s lawyers. They were clever, aggressive, unreasonable, intemperate, and irritating. They were committed to a romantic and old-fashioned concept of class struggle. They fought what they called “the Establishment.” They had no respect for the courts or the legal profession, which reciprocated their hostility. The Toronto newspapers, particularly The Globe and Mail, for a time followed their every step, almost adoringly; there were front-page stories and lead editorials written about them, and op-ed pieces that they wrote themselves. But, in the end, Angie and Harry were consumed by their bad judgment, febrile emotion, and absurd rhetoric. They lost support and respect. They became figures of fun to some. They were hated by others. They were disbarred. When Kopyto was kicked out of the Law Society of Upper Canada in November 1989, the headline in Vancouver’s Province newspaper was “Famous lawyer ousted.”1 In 2000, Angie went to prison in New York State.
ANGELINA MARIE CODINA was born in Uruguay. Her family immigrated to Canada in 1965. She graduated from the University of Ottawa law school in 1983. Harry Kopyto describes her as a “brilliant technical lawyer.” She called herself a Marxist. In May 1989, the Toronto Star reported that she flew to Beijing and gave a ten-minute speech before a crowd of five hundred thousand protesters in Tiananmen Square. She described her speech to the newspaper: “I told them that their protest was vital to the development of democratic principles within a socialist state.”2 Harry says that he was dazzled by Angie and her lifestyle. “She would spend $10,000 on jewellery at the drop of a hat,” he says. “She was building an international immigration law empire.” They met in 1984—“I was bowled over,” says Harry.3
On Monday, August 7, 1989, the RCMP waited at Pearson International Airport to arrest Codina. Thirty-one years old, she was on her way back from the Portuguese colony of Macau (now part of China) where she had lived on and off since 1987. Codina fainted when the RCMP took her into custody. She was charged under section 95 of the Immigration Act with counselling a foreign resident to misrepresent a material fact to Canadian immigration officials.4 She spent her first night back in Canada in a Metro Toronto police cell. In the morning, she was released on $50,000 bail, secured by the seven-bedroom Forest Hill house where she had lived for some time with Kopyto. Three weeks later, the house on Dunvegan Road, one of the most fashionable residential streets in Toronto, was up for sale—asking price, $1.76 million. Kopyto, a self-described Marxist-Leninist, told the Toronto Star, “Here I am living among a class of person I have class hatred for.”5 Perhaps his inability to meet the $11,000 per month mortgage payments was more significant than his class hatred. For years, Codina had paid the mortgage and the heating and food bills. But now, Codina’s immigration law practice was in difficulty and money was scarce.6
On April 1, 1993, a jury found Codina guilty of immigration fraud. In May, a judge sentenced her to six months in jail. She immediately appealed her conviction and was released on $25,000 bail. Codina, aided by eminent criminal defence lawyers Clayton Ruby and Alan Gold, fought ferociously and with considerable skill. In January 1995, the Court of Appeal quashed her conviction on the grounds that the judge may have misled the jury on important areas of evidence, and directed a new trial.7 On February 27, 1997, she was convicted a second time by a jury and fined $5,000. But in February 1999, the Ontario Court of Appeal set aside the second conviction, finding, yet again, that the jury had been improperly charged.8 Justice Goudge giving judgment said, “The event giving rise to the charge took place well over eleven years ago. The appellant has been prosecuted twice without success. The charge, while important, is not among the most serious. In the circumstances, it is appropriate that these proceedings be stayed and I would so order.”9
A different kind of trouble for Angie Codina had begun in 1991. Two young lawyers who worked in her law firm were assigned files funded by the Ontario Legal Aid Plan. A docket form was stapled on the inside of each file folder, and all work performed on the file was reported on the docket. When a file was completed, the folder was given to Codina, who would send an account to Legal Aid. The two young lawyers discovered that many accounts sent to Legal Aid contained numerous entries of time spent by Codina, time they believed was bogus. They went to the audit and investigation department of the law society. A criminal investigation began. On June 18, 1992, search warrants were executed at Codina’s office and at the house on Dunvegan Road (which, despite Harry’s class hatred of his neighbours, had not been sold). Alan Gold, acting for Codina, went before the Ontario Court of Justice and attacked the validity of the search warrant. Justice Humphrey was not impressed by Gold’s arguments.10 He said:
The justice would have been fully justified in issuing a search warrant on the lawyers’ statements alone. In their statements they describe how Ms. Codina’s spouse, Harry Kopyto, a former lawyer who was disbarred because of irregular billings to Legal Aid, was virtually practicing law through Ms. Codina and in fact he was preparing the accounts to Legal Aid, which were then certified by Ms. Codina and tendered for payment. There was also information from the lawyers that trust monies were deposited in the general account which was barely in the black and often cheques written on that account were NSF. There was evidence from the lawyers that Ms. Codina was living hand to mouth since she was paying enormous amounts of money on the mortgage on her Dunvegan Road home. There was evi
dence from the lawyers that bogus interpreter fees were claimed on the Legal Aid accounts and that the actual interpretations were done by staff who were not paid for that service or through a bogus company.…
With respect to the scope of the warrant, in light of the information the justice had about the goings on at the law firm with Harry Kopyto acting as the Wizard of Oz behind the scenes, and considering that the lawyers described serious concern about the number of unethical and illegal activities, the justice might well have issued an authorization less restrictive than the one he authorized.
Added Justice Humphrey:
I know that Mr. Gold’s brilliant, lofty and engaging argument deserves better treatment by me. While initially during the argument I showed some enthusiasm for his arguments, on more mature consideration and reflection the feeling passed as the reality of the situation settled into my thoughts.
Lawyers Gone Bad Page 21