Alberta’s Court of Appeal has overturned a contempt conviction against Crown attorney James D. Wilson, who was ejected from a bail hearing by Justice of the Peace Diane T. Luttmer. The incident occurred in May during a hearing for a young man charged with mischief for damaging his grandfather’s garage door. The court's decision, issued on October 16, emphasized the importance of allowing all parties to be heard in legal proceedings.

The appeal court found that Luttmer had not given Wilson a fair opportunity to present his case. The three-judge panel stated, "The right of a party to be heard … is a fundamental principle of natural justice." They noted that denying this right harms the reputation of the justice system and raises concerns about impartiality. The judges pointed out that Luttmer was unwilling to hear Wilson’s submissions regarding the facts and law of the case.

During the bail hearing, Wilson requested an adjournment to address objections raised by the young man’s lawyer regarding proposed release conditions, including an abstinence clause and a weapons prohibition. Luttmer denied this request and pressed Wilson for evidence supporting a drug prohibition. As Wilson attempted to read from the police synopsis, Luttmer interrupted him multiple times, expressing impatience and accusing him of overstepping.

The back-and-forth escalated, with Wilson asserting his obligation to present credible evidence. He mentioned that drug paraphernalia had been found at the scene, but Luttmer interrupted him again, warning that he was close to being removed from the courtroom for contempt. The situation deteriorated further when Wilson attempted to explain the young man’s history with drugs and weapons, but Luttmer continued to interrupt him.

Ultimately, Luttmer declared Wilson in contempt and concluded the hearing without a prosecutor present. The young man was subsequently released on conditions that did not include a weapons ban or drug prohibition. The appeal court criticized Luttmer’s conduct, stating that her actions created an appearance of partiality and that Wilson had a right to be heard in the matter.

The court concluded that Luttmer made a significant error in finding Wilson in contempt while he was fulfilling his duties as a Crown prosecutor. The ruling underscores the necessity for judicial officers to allow counsel to present their arguments fully before making decisions in court.