The Spunt & Carin Affair: An Autistic Father, a Vanished Lawyer, and Silent Institutions

An autistic father separated from his twins. A lawyer who resigned mid-investigation and whose whereabouts are described two different ways under oath — China, or a Walmart in Kirkland. And a chain of institutions that keep passing the file to one another.

It begins with a father. Julien (not his real name), who is autistic and lives with Tourette syndrome, was mowing his lawn on an ordinary morning.

Two hours later he was in handcuffs, surrounded by an armoured vehicle, tactical officers, dog handlers and a bomb squad. No explosives were found. No arsenal. The most serious charges were dropped. He was acquitted.

His children were not returned to him.

What starts as a family breakdown becomes, over four years of proceedings, something considerably darker: a file in which lawyers resign in the middle of disciplinary investigations, in which a key witness cannot be located, in which the Barreau du Québec — the province’s law society — closes its files despite allegations of serious criminal fraud, and in which the bodies charged with protecting the public appear to hand the matter back and forth indefinitely.

I — The machineryA courtroom that read his neurology as instability

From the beginning of his separation, Julien says he faced a system that interpreted each of his neurological symptoms as a sign of instability.

One judge, Pierre Labelle, is alleged to have told him that « a person like him » did not deserve a lawyer — leaving him to represent himself despite his disability. Another judge, Stéphane Lacoste, denied him his reasonable accommodations and the support person he had requested for hearings, as reflected in the minutes of 18 November 2025.

The most chilling episode is alleged to have taken place at the courthouse. His legal aid lawyer, Me Bianca Vigneault, allegedly convinced him that an emergency hearing had been cancelled — when in fact it was going ahead.

Once there, isolated in a cubicle, he was allegedly presented with a lengthy document drafted by opposing counsel, Me David Chun, describing him as dangerous. When he refused to sign, his lawyer allegedly said to him:

These words are alleged and have not been confirmed by the persons named. But for Julien they mark the point of no return.

II — The vanished lawyerMe David Chun, and two accounts that cannot both be true

At the centre of the file is Me David Chun, a lawyer with the Westmount firm Spunt & Carin.

His name appears throughout the proceedings — as the drafter of documents, as a central figure in the collusion allegations, and as a potential witness in the related criminal files.

On 5 February 2025, he formally resigned from the Barreau du Québec — while an investigation by the Bureau du syndic, the law society’s disciplinary investigations office, was under way. Under Quebec professional discipline law, cooperating with such an investigation is an ethical obligation. A resignation mid-investigation therefore raises serious questions on its own.

The file turns Kafkaesque when his whereabouts become the subject of two incompatible accounts filed before two different judicial bodies.

The contradiction has consequences. In July 2025, the Directeur des poursuites criminelles et pénales (DPCP), Quebec’s prosecution service, stated through Me Flavie Picard that it did not have sufficient evidence to proceed to trial — in part because of the unavailability of this central witness.

The criminal charges against Julien fell away. The family proceedings did not. They continue to produce their effects — still resting on documents drafted by a lawyer no one can now locate.

III — The firmA Westmount rivalry, and a warning from inside

Spunt & Carin is not an ordinary firm. It grew up in the orbit of Goldwater Dubé, Quebec’s best-known family law practice. Several of its lawyers — Me Alexander Carin, Me Eric Kirshner, Me Ian Solloway, and David Chun himself — have professional roots there.

A natural rivalry developed between the two houses in the affluent Westmount district.

But in the wake of David Chun’s resignation and the civil proceedings that followed, something shifted. Kirshner and Solloway, two senior figures, returned to Goldwater. Support staff followed them.

And it is from inside that same firm that the most explosive allegation in the file emerged.

On 6 December 2025, Julien received an email from an address intended to be anonymous. A digital traceability analysis reportedly attributes it to Me Daniel Goldwater, an experienced lawyer. The message does not speak of errors or shortcomings. It speaks of « serious criminal fraud », of a « cover-up », and of the Barreau’s inaction.

These are allegations, not judicial findings. But they come from a member of the Barreau who says he knows the file from the inside — because lawyers who worked at Spunt & Carin, and are now at Goldwater, reportedly described its details to him.

Me Anne-France Goldwater, one of Quebec’s most recognized lawyers, is said to have herself filed a formal report with the Barreau concerning these facts.

The reply from the Bureau du syndic, signed by assistant syndic Me Guylaine Mallette, runs to a few lines: a decision has been rendered, and the file is closed.

IV — The wallEvery door opens onto another closed door

Julien attempted to file police ethics complaints in Repentigny. Officers refused to register them.

On audio recordings he has published, he can be heard being told that he is only there to cause trouble, and that his facial tics and apparent nervousness make him look like a drug user — while he was explaining that he lives with Tourette syndrome.

What remainsFour years, and no one held to account

Julien’s appeal is still pending. His twins are now four years old. The psychosocial reports and the youth protection assessments were favourable to him, he says.

No one has been sanctioned. The central witness remains unlocated.

The file raises questions that reach well beyond one man’s case. What happens when a lawyer can resign in the middle of a disciplinary investigation without public consequence? When two contradictory accounts of the same fact coexist under oath and no body rules on either? When the fund meant to protect the public instead funds the defence of the firm complained of — and sends cease-and-desist letters to the journalists covering the story?

The question is no longer whether the system failed in one particular case. The question is how many similar cases the same system has produced in silence.