Proceedings into the misconduct hearing against Justice of the Peace Anna Gibbon have wrapped up with a decision still to come.
Submissions from both sides will happen on September 30th and October 1st as Gibbon faced questions Tuesday from the panel that will ultimately decide whether or not she had advocated for her son in his failure to yield case in June 2019.
The lawyer representing Anna Gibbon, Eugene Bhattacharya brought forward two witnesses.
First was Roseanna Hudson, who has been in the Administration of Justice since 1984, holding multiple positions throughout her career and worked with the Justice of the Peace.
Hudson testified that she met Gibbon in either the late 1990s or early 2000s with Gibbon providing training to her group in conflict resolution.
Hudson spoke well of Gibbon, stating “It’s like we had a connection, I trusted her.”
She also went on to say the Justice of the Peace had an awesome reputation amongst co-workers.
Next was defense lawyer David MacKenzie, who originally met Gibbon at a bail court hearing, but they did not see her again for some time.
MacKenzie said Gibbon was professional and had an excellent reputation.
He goes on to say the Justice of the Peace even visited him three separate times while he was in the hospital with health issues.
John Tzanis opened up the discussion earlier on Tuesday, asking Gibbon whether she believed her son’s case should have been dismissed on the first trial date, rather than be pushed to a later date.
Gibbon has consistently said her son had been denied justice throughout his time dealing with the justice system.
Gibbon stressed she only wanted a judicial decision the day of the trial and added if the prosecutor had made a convincing argument against her son, she would have accepted it.
The trial was pushed ahead because there was a sticky note on a file presented to the judge presiding over her son’s case, stating his relationship to Gibbon.
In instances such as this where there is a conflict, the lawyers and judge should not know the relation to ensure there is no bias in the decision.
Justice Timothy Lipson then questioned Gibbon, which derailed the proceedings again.
The first answer was about the prosecuting lawyer in her son’s case, Nicole Klein, that would have questioned her credibility. Gibbon never once brought forward this information throughout six days of proceedings.
The panel will be disregarding this information and that it will not factor into the decision.
The other answer Gibbon provided that caused concern was based around why the sticky note was placed on her son’s file.
Gibbon’s lawyer, Eugene Bhattacharya, stressed his defense is not trying to confirm a conspiracy, and that they are accepting the note being placed there was a mistake.
Gibbon faces a number of punishments should the complaint be upheld including a warning or reprimand, an apology or further education, a suspension with or without pay or a recommendation to remove Gibbon from office.
Gibbon has been reassigned to a court outside of Thunder Bay.
