GATINEAU - ustice must not only be done; it must be seen to be done. In Quebec, however, the administration of justice too often occurs behind closed doors, shielded from the public eye by an antiquated ban on broadcast cameras. The recent and disturbing allegations emerging from the case of Carby-Samuels v. Ville de Gatineau et al. serve as a stark wake-up call. If the reports regarding Justice Catherine Piché’s conduct are accurate, they represent a calculated attack on civil rights that demands immediate, televised transparency.

To the public, Justice Piché is often portrayed through high-profile, socially progressive cases—such as her recent landmark ruling prioritizing a patient’s right to medical assistance in dying over a palliative care home’s religious objections. But critics argue this public image acts as a public relations charade designed to conceal a verifiably unethical reality. In the Carby-Samuels matter, the allegations move far beyond simple errors in interpreting law or facts. Instead, they point to a deliberate deception: a calculated decision to falsify a litigant's background and subject them to public ridicule, an offence that ought to immediately disqualify any judge from presiding over a case.

The courtroom dynamic described by Raymond Carby-Samuels, a Black human rights claimant, exposes the dangerous asymmetry of Quebec's legal system. According to filings, Gatineau’s legal counsel actively urged Justice Piché to strip Mr. Carby-Samuels of his human rights claims in a separate Quebec Human Rights Tribunal proceeding. This push was allegedly based upon case law that Gatineau's lawyer professed existed, but deliberately chose never to show the self-represented litigant. Worse still, the city's lawyer reportedly emphasized to the judge that they could act with impunity because "no one was going to find out anyway," banking on an absolute lack of public support for the litigant, alongside the court's manufactured dismissal of his university diplomas.

This is the outrageous behaviour and profound disregard to which everyday Quebecers are exposed. The entire system operates on the cynical premise that the court has nothing to fear from an ordinary citizen when compared to a more economically powerful proponent. In this case, the City of Gatineau and its police department are able to tap into the public treasury without the consent of taxpayers, utilizing endless funding to perpetrate a self-serving agenda that seeks to embolden and protect the activities of racist cops.

When a government-appointed apparatus can weaponize vexatious litigant orders, deny English interpretation services, and mock a citizen's credentials behind closed doors, the public's trust in the integrity of the judiciary evaporates. How can anyone trust the integrity of such a judge?

The solution is as clear as it is urgent. Introducing TV cameras to Quebec’s courtrooms will point a blinding light directly at this institutional corruption. In doing so, broadcasting these proceedings will not only educate the public on the realities of the legal system, but it will finally keep judges and government-appointed lawyers honest by ensuring they can no longer conceal their toxic activities in secrecy.