The Law Society of Alberta Trial of Minister Madu – What Has Race Got to Do With It?

In January 2022, headlines across Canadian media ignited a controversy involving Kaycee Madu, Canada’s first Black provincial justice minister. The reports centered on Madu receiving a traffic ticket from a police officer after a traffic stop and subsequently calling the police chief to discuss his concerns over the traffic stop. Almost immediately, a media narrative emerged suggesting that Madu had attempted to use his political influence to avoid the ticket – a narrative that spread quickly, despite the police chief’s clear statement that no such request had been made.

Minister Madu explained that his call was not an attempt to avoid the ticket but rather to raise concerns about potential police surveillance and racial profiling. As a Black man and Justice Minister, he emphasized the significance of these issues, rooted not only in his personal experiences but also in the numerous complaints he had received from Alberta’s racial minority communities about racial profiling by police. Unfortunately, Mr. Madu’s narrative about racial profiling in this incident was largely ignored in the media coverage of this controversy, and subsequent proceedings, reflecting a broader pattern of ignoring systemic racism in public discourse and institutional responses.

Justice Kent’s Inquiry: Limited Engagement with Systemic Racism

In response to the growing controversy, the then-premier Jason Kenney appointed Justice Adèle Kent to investigate the incident. In her report, Justice Kent candidly acknowledged that she was “not an expert in systemic racism, racism, or racial profiling,” a startling admission given the centrality of these issues to the case. While her analysis and conclusions on this critical issue may be open to challenge, she at least made an attempt to engage with the complexities of racial profiling. This effort, however, fell far short of the deeper, more nuanced understanding needed to fully grasp the impact of systemic racism within policing and the justice system.

The Law Society of Alberta Trial

Following the release of Justice Kent’s report, a complaint was filed with the Law Society of Alberta (LSA), which initiated disciplinary proceedings against Mr. Madu based on a single citation alleging that his call to the police chief “undermined respect for the administration of justice.” Given Justice Kent’s candid admission of her lack of expertise “in systemic racism, racism, and racial profiling,” one might have reasonably expected the LSA to empanel a representative and culturally competent hearing committee, especially for a case so deeply tied to issues of racial profiling. Instead, the LSA empaneled an all-White committee, raising significant concerns about the fairness of the proceedings.

But why would a professional body that has openly denounced systemic discrimination make such a strategic blunder? The answer is simple: its long list of appointed adjudicators (prospective disciplinary committee members) is overwhelmingly White, with not a single Black member among its extensive roster which can be found here.

Surprisingly, even Mr. Madu’s counsel failed to raise any objection to the composition of the Committee. At the conclusion of the hearing, citing the landmark case of R. v. S. (R.D.), Madu’s counsel urged the panel to consider his lived experiences in their final decision – a near impossible task. How could an all-White panel, with no capacity to truly understand the racial realities faced by Mr. Madu, meaningfully engage with a case that required them to consider those very experiences?

The Disciplinary Committee’s Decision

In its 40-page, 202-paragraph decision, instead of attempting to meaningfully engage with the issue of racial profiling, the Committee adopted an overtly dismissive attitude, concluding that “there was no objective basis for Mr. Madu’s connection between the Traffic Stop” and racial profiling. This reflects a broader tendency in the larger society, particularly among the dominant racial group, to minimize or dismiss the uncomfortable realities of race and racism. As emphasized in R. v. S. (R.D.), racism is a pervasive social fact in Canada, and the Committee was obligated to acknowledge and engage with this reality rather than dismissing it outright. The Committee’s approach not only undermines its conclusion on this specific issue, but also cast serious doubt on the overall fairness and credibility of the decision. These concerns are further detailed below.

a. Social Context Theory: Ignoring the Broader Picture

The Committee’s reluctance to engage with racial profiling disregards the critical role of social context in adjudication, particularly in cases involving racialized individuals. Social context theory in R. v. S. (R.D.), emphasizes the need for courts to recognize the broader societal and historical realities of racism, both systemic and individual. It encourages courts to take into account the lived experiences of racial minorities and the patterns of discrimination they face, rather than treating each case in isolation from its social context.

The Committee’s effort to distinguish Mr. Madu’s case from R. v. S. (R.D.) was unconvincing. In R. v. S. (R.D.), the judge weighed conflicting testimonies between a Black youth and a police officer, ultimately siding with the youth. Similarly, in Mr. Madu’s case, the Committee faced a credibility issue between a Black man and a police officer. However, in choosing to accept the police officer’s account over Mr. Madu’s, the Committee went to great lengths to portray Mr. Madu in the worst possible light, employing racially charged stereotypes that have no place in a reasoned decision. While the White police officer was described as “cordial”, Mr. Madu was stereotypically and repeatedly characterized as “animated”, “immediately opposed”, “definitely defensive”, “adamant”, “moderately argumentative”, and “worked up” – effectively invoking the harmful trope of the “angry Black man” – a harmful racialized stereotype used to delegitimize Black individuals in professional and personal contexts.

b. A Faulty “Reasonable Person” Analysis

The LSA decision also raises several issues from a racial justice perspective concerning its analysis of the “reasonable person” standard. The decision adopts a generalized and abstract view of the “reasonable person”, failing to consider the lived experiences of racialized individuals, particularly Black Canadians. This is in contrast to R. v. S. (R.D.), where the Supreme Court emphasized that the “reasonable person” must be “informed, practical, and realistic”, informed by the social context, including the “history of widespread and systemic discrimination against black and aboriginal people, and high profile clashes between the police and the visible minority population over policing issues”. The LSA decision does not incorporate an understanding of systemic racism or racial profiling, central to Mr. Madu’s concerns, into its “reasonable person” analysis. What made R. v. S. (R.D.) a landmark case in racial justice jurisprudence was the cultural competence demonstrated by the presiding judge, Corrine Sparks – a competence glaringly absent in the LSA Committee’s handling of Mr. Madu’s case, largely due to the lack of diversity within the Committee.

c. The Tone and Language of the Decision

The tone and language of the LSA decision exhibit troubling patterns that could be perceived as blatantly condescending, particularly toward Mr. Madu, who was serving as Alberta’s Justice Minister at the time of the conduct in question. The Committee chastised Mr. Madu because he “did not collect himself and then carry on to his office” after the traffic stop, instead drove to a parking lot where he spent a few minutes before calling the police chief. As a Black individual, my lived experience with racism has taught me that when subtle racism occurs, there is often an initial period of self-doubt, questioning whether the treatment was truly racist. This process requires time and reflection to unpack the experience. By taking issue with Mr. Madu’s brief pause to reflect, and framing it in condescending terms, the Committee demonstrated a lack of cultural competence and an insensitivity to the impact of systemic racism.

As previously noted, the Committee used stereotypical terms such as “animated”, “opposed”, “defensive”, “adamant”, “argumentative”, and “worked up” to negatively characterize Mr. Madu. Shortly before Mr. Madu’s proceeding, another LSA Committee handled a disciplinary proceeding involving Tyler Shandro, a White lawyer and Alberta cabinet minister. The incident arose from Mr. Shandro’s heated and emotional confrontation with a neighbour. In stark contrast, note how the Shandro’s panel adopted a notably different approach to assessing his emotional disposition. It concluded that “[e]ven if Mr. Shandro was loud and emotional, that behaviour does not rise to a level of being improper in the context. There is nothing inherently wrong about a lawyer approaching a neighbour about issues or concerns, even where there is an emotional content to the conversation… To find Mr. Shandro guilty would mean that no lawyer could engage in an argumentative or emotionally heated private conversation with another person.” Para. 181 [Emphasis added].

Unlike the balanced and empathetic tone afforded to the more “animated” and “worked up” White lawyer, which framed his emotional reaction as understandable, the Black lawyer’s emotional response to his traffic stop was stereotypically framed as improper, without the same level of consideration for his personal circumstances or the broader context of systemic racism. This stark contrast raises significant concerns about fairness and equity in how the LSA disciplinary panels treat racialized members compared to White members.

Conclusion

By appointing an all-White panel to adjudicate a racially charged case, the Law Society of Alberta revealed a troubling lack of cultural competence and awareness of systemic racism within society and the legal profession. This oversight is perhaps unsurprising from an institution that took over a century to elect its first Black bencher (board member). By dismissing Madu’s concerns about racial profiling, the LSA’s all-White Committee not only disregarded the reality of systemic racism but also reinforced its erasure within the legal profession and Canada’s broader legal system.

The LSA trial of Mr. Madu serves as a stark reminder of the persistent challenges that racialized individuals face in navigating the justice system. Ultimately, this case will, for a very long time, serve as a reference case illustrating the differential treatment that racialized lawyers face in disciplinary proceedings within Canada’s legal profession.