Goldwater Reports a Fraud to the Bar. The Syndic Closes the File.

The story does not begin with an email. It begins with a family law file that became, over the years, a judicial labyrinth with irreversible human consequences: a father living with autism spectrum disorder and Tourette syndrome cut off from his young children despite favourable reports, while parallel proceedings, factual contradictions and fraud allegations accumulate around him.

At the heart of the file is a lawyer from the Spunt & Carin firm — David Chun — who resigned from the Barreau du Québec in the middle of an investigation by the Bureau du syndic, the law society’s disciplinary investigations office. That fact alone, in a disciplinary system meant to protect the public, raises a basic question: what becomes of an investigation when the lawyer under investigation leaves the order?

In this particular file, not only did the disciplinary investigation lead to no publicly known sanction, but the firm concerned was subsequently sued in civil proceedings alleging fraud and judicial collusion. Meanwhile the Bureau du syndic declined to open or reopen a formal investigation, and the parties involved were cleared — despite the resignation that occurred while the investigation was under way.

I — ContradictionsTwo accounts, both filed, both sworn to matter

The matter grows more troubling once the whereabouts of the former lawyer become central.

In a defence conducted by counsel retained and paid by the Fonds d’assurance responsabilité professionnelle du Barreau du Québec (FARPBQ), the Bar’s professional liability insurance fund — in this instance Me Jean-François Noiseux — it is maintained that David Chun resides in China, an argument that bears directly on whether he can be compelled to testify or made to appear.

It should also be noted that Me Noiseux sent cease-and-desist letters to journalists covering the matter. Without prejudging the procedural legitimacy of those steps, their effect was to slow the public circulation of information about the file. In a context already marked by significant factual contradictions, some might reasonably ask whether the aim is to protect a legal position — or to prevent certain questions from being asked.

In parallel, however, a sworn declaration produced by an employee of the Spunt & Carin firm states the opposite: that David Chun was seen physically present in Quebec, at the Walmart in Kirkland, on a specific date, with photographs attached.

And despite that accumulation of procedural and factual elements, the Bureau du syndic maintains the closure of the file.

II — The turnA report that should have changed things

The new and decisive element comes later.

After recruiting senior lawyers who had come from the Spunt & Carin environment, Me Anne-France Goldwater learned of the alleged facts through professional third parties. According to the documented sequence, she herself reported the situation to the Barreau du Québec, passing on the information in her possession.

Her son, Me Daniel Goldwater, informed second-hand, then contacted the applicant in the file, believing he was acting anonymously. The email metadata nonetheless made it possible to trace the origin of the exchange. When put to him, he did not deny being aware of the matter, and indicated that his mother was the source of the information and had already brought it to the Barreau.

This is no longer the configuration of a lone litigant dismissed as an « insistent » or « quarrelsome » complainant. It is a situation in which one of Quebec’s best-known and most respected family law practitioners is said to have passed to the syndic information she described as amounting to serious criminal fraud.

And even so, the institutional answer remained the same.

III — The decisionClosed, and closed again

Assistant syndic Me Guylaine Mallette confirmed that the file had already been the subject of a decision, that the decision had been upheld by the Comité de révision — the review committee — and that the Bureau du syndic was closing the file and declining any fresh request for an investigation.

In other words, even after all of the following:

… the Barreau maintains the closure.

What is really at stakeThe question stops being individual

This file has now moved beyond the family dispute it began as. It has moved beyond the specific allegations aimed at one firm or one lawyer.

It raises a major institutional question: what must happen for a disciplinary investigation to actually be carried through, when a member resigns mid-investigation and allegations of serious criminal fraud persist?

When the person reporting is no longer only a father separated from his children, but also an emblematic figure of the Quebec bar, and the disciplinary door still stays shut, the question stops being individual.

Because if a report of that magnitude, made by Me Anne-France Goldwater herself, is not enough to maintain or reopen a disciplinary examination in a context this heavy with contradictions, then the debate is no longer about one file.

It is about public confidence in the very mechanism meant to provide protection.

UpdateMarch 2026

Since this article was first published, EnDroit.ca has documented several related files raising the same systemic issues.

The judgment of Justice Daniel Urbas (2026 QCCS 365), which documents the instrumentalization of a provisional custody application under Quebec’s P-38 regime against a woman in her seventies, confirms that the misuse of judicial procedures in a family context extends beyond this one file.

Our reporting on the FARPBQ and its structural conflict of interest bears directly on the role of the insurance fund that finances the defence of the Spunt & Carin firm in this matter.

The Bureau du syndic has still not reopened an investigation.