Rod Gillis sues 2 cities and 2 officers over 'wrongful' obstruction conviction

Prominent Saint John lawyer Rod Gillis is suing two police officers and two municipalities, alleging he was wrongfully convicted of obstruction of justice in 2013, because of their negligence.

Gillis filed a notice of action and statement of claim against Bathurst Police Force officer Andre Comeau, Fredericton Police Force officer Mark Lord, and the City of Bathurst and the City of Fredericton as their employers.

Gillis is seeking special damages for loss of income and legal costs, as well as general damages for future loss of income, "including loss of reputation and loss of clients," and for emotional distress, according to the notice filed Jan. 31 with the Court of Queen's Bench in Saint John.

​The lawsuit stems from an obstruction of justice allegation against Gillis, dating back to 2009.

The veteran lawyer with Gilbert McGloan Gillis was accused of attempting to stop a witness from testifying against one of his clients.

Gillis was representing former Liberal MLA Frank Branch in a civil lawsuit against the North Shore Forest Products Marketing Board, as well as on criminal charges of fraud and extortion.

The manager of the marketing board, Alain Landry, alleged Gillis approached him during a break in proceedings at the Bathurst courthouse and offered a deal. He alleged Gillis had said to him, "They're your witnesses, make sure they don't testify and the Crown won't have a case."

Gillis was charged with obstruction on Nov. 25, 2011, found guilty on Jan. 31, 2013, and sentenced to 22 months in jail.

But the New Brunswick Court of Appeal quashed his conviction on Sept. 9, 2014, and ordered a new trial, citing errors of fact and law by trial Judge Irwin Lampert that "combined to deprive [Gillis] of a fair trial," and "resulted in a miscarriage of justice."

The Crown sought to have that decision reviewed by the Supreme Court of Canada but was denied.

In November 2015, when the retrial was set to begin, the charge against Gillis was dropped. Crown prosecutor Peter Craig told the court new evidence had come forward and there was no reasonable prospect of a conviction.

Improper investigation alleged

"Had the defendant Comeau and the defendant Lord conducted a proper investigation, the charges against [Gillis] would either never have been brought or would have been dropped prior to trial," Gillis argues in his statement of claim.

"In the alternative, if the charges against [Gillis] had been brought to trial after a proper investigation, the charges would have been resolved in his favour."

Gillis contends the City of Bathurst is "vicariously liable" for failing to properly supervise Comeau and the City of Fredericton is "vicariously liable" for failing ot properly supervise Lord or appoint a more experienced investigator.

"Being charged, arrested, and wrongfully convicted of obstruction of justice have caused him damage and loss," he wrote.

None of Gillis's claims have been proven in court.

No statements of defence have yet been filed.​

Case transferred to Fredericton

In the statement of claim, Gillis says Comeau handled the initial complaint by Landry and failed to obtain a recorded statement.

The Bathurst Police Force later transferred the complaint to the Fredericton Police Force because of Bathurst's involvement with the prosecution of Branch.

Lord was assigned as lead investigator on or about Feb. 2, 2010.

Gillis claims Lord was a polygraphist, who "lacked the investigative experience or skills" to handle the case and that there were material errors in the information Comeau gave to Lord and/or in Lord's understanding of the information.

He also alleges when Lord took a statement from Landry on Feb. 23, 2010, he failed to ask him "obvious and critical follow-up questions," which would "be essential to assessing Landry's credibility and reliability and establishing what really happened."

Similarly, Gillis alleges Lord failed to ask the marketing board's lawyer, David Young, "obvious follow-up questions" about his conversation with Landry regarding the alleged deal, and failed to ask Linda Gould-MacDonald, the executive director of the New Brunswick Forest Products Commission, about her observations of the meeting between Gillis and Landry.

Settlement offer 'completely proper and legal'

Gillis contends he handed Landry a handwritten note titled "Offer to Settle" in the Bathurst courthouse hallway, and explained to Landry a possible settlement of the civil matter.

He says he also indicated that if the civil matter could be settled, he would attempt to negotiate with prosecutors to have them offer no evidence at Branch's criminal trial, the court document states.

"The Crown offering no evidence is a common and proper method for resolving criminal charges in favour of an accused and is similar to dropping charges but prevents the Crown from recharging the offence," Gillis argues in the statement of claim.

He says he never suggested that Landry or the board would have any role in resolving the criminal charges.

"The settlement proposal was, in fact, completely proper and legal," Gillis contends.

"If the defendant Lord had sought informed opinions on the matter, he would have realized that the plaintiff's written and verbal offers to Landry were an accepted way of resolving, or attempting to resolve, the proceedings."

Gillis alleges the first opportunity he was given to provide his version of events was when he was arrested on Sept. 9, 2011 — about 21 months after the alleged offence.

"In his mind, the discussion in the hallway with Landry on Dec. 10, 2009 had been a routine and unremarkable settlement offer and he had thought little of it since it was never mentioned again until his arrest," according to the statement of claim.