When a Judge Sits Twice on the Same File, Who Checks? A Disbarred Lawyer Brings the Question to the Supreme Court of Canada

On May 3, 2026, Jacqueline Sanderson electronically filed an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. 469 pages. No lawyer. No firm. No institutional support. The question she raises goes beyond her own case — and goes to the heart of judicial impartiality in this country.

By EnDroit.ca · Published on May 9, 2026 · Justice · Judicial Impartiality · Barreau du Québec · Update to the 5-article Sanderson-Roberge series

On one side: Jacqueline Sanderson, former disbarred lawyer, representing herself alone from her office at Place Ville-Marie (PVM) in Montreal. On the other: the Barreau du Québec, represented by a Montreal law firm. The Attorney General of Quebec. The Attorney General of Canada.

This article is not about the merits of the disciplinary charges against Sanderson. It is about a broader question she places today before the highest court in the country: can a judge be asked to evaluate their own prior involvement in a file — and if they refuse to recuse themselves, does anyone, anywhere, actually check?

Where we are in the series

Articles 1 to 5: Samuel Roberge detained since 2022. A police report whose author says he never wrote it. A secret hearing accidentally released from the court registry. Two lawyers disbarred. A file that disappeared from the public register of the Council of the Magistrature. A pattern documented across three separate cases — Sanderson-Roberge, Julien/Spunt-Carin, Faubourg Mena’sen — where citizens who do not know each other produce the same result: those who denounce irregularities get sanctioned, and those who are denounced are protected.

This update: The first of the two disbarred lawyers in the series, Jacqueline Sanderson, files an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. Beyond the Roberge file, the entire pattern documented in the series now stands before the highest court in the country.

How we got here

Jacqueline Sanderson is a former Quebec lawyer, disbarred for 22 months in July 2024 following disciplinary proceedings before the Barreau du Québec. That disbarment — and its connection to the Sanderson-Roberge affair previously documented by EnDroit.ca — is the subject of a separate series of articles on this platform.

What this update documents is what happened afterwards.

After the disbarment, Sanderson pursued several proceedings simultaneously: an application for judicial review before the Superior Court, appeals before the Quebec Court of Appeal, motions to stay the disciplinary proceedings, and finally — today — an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Throughout that process, the same Quebec Court of Appeal judge appeared twice in the same file.

The same judge, twice, the same file number

In December 2024, Justice Geneviève Marcotte of the Quebec Court of Appeal heard a first application connected to Superior Court file no. 500-17-129627-249 — a search warrant against Sanderson’s personal residence, issued on August 29, 2024, less than an hour before a scheduled hearing, to seize her computers, her phones and her client files. Justice Marcotte refused leave to appeal. In the same judgment, she characterized the omission of the words « nonobstant appel » in the sanction decision as a mere « clerical error » — without any legal analysis of the distinction. The Barreau would never ask for the error to be corrected. Sanderson was nonetheless suspended for 22 months.

That legal distinction is fundamental. In Quebec law: provisional execution means the decision is enforceable upon service, but an appeal can suspend its effect; provisional execution « nonobstant appel » means the decision remains enforceable even during an appeal.

The Disciplinary Council’s sanction decision did not contain the words « nonobstant appel ». According to Sanderson, the disbarment should have been automatically suspended as soon as she filed her appeal. The Barreau nonetheless maintained the disbarment for 22 months.

Of note: at the first hearing, Justice Marcotte herself reportedly indicated that the Barreau was not authorized to seize Sanderson’s tax files, and the Barreau’s lawyer reportedly confirmed they would be returned. Sanderson states she has still not recovered those files.

In February 2026, the same Justice Marcotte was assigned to hear a second application in the same Superior Court file number — this time concerning the September 16, 2025 judgment of Justice Ian Demers, which ordered Sanderson to pay $18,801.32 in extrajudicial fees to the Barreau. According to the brief, this would be the first time in Quebec history that a self-represented litigant has been ordered to pay fees to the Barreau in the context of a penal-disciplinary proceeding; EnDroit.ca has found no contrary precedent in its own research. Sanderson also raises a question of fairness: the Barreau’s syndics are themselves lawyers and can represent themselves — why should an unrepresented litigant be ordered to pay the fees of their outside counsel?

Sanderson filed a formal motion for recusal, invoking the Latin maxim nemo judex in causa sua — no one should be a judge in their own cause. Justice Marcotte refused to recuse herself. She rendered her judgment on February 27, 2026 (Sanderson c. Dyotte, 2026 QCCA 268). According to Sanderson’s application, that judgment dismisses the recusal motion without conducting the factual analysis required by Supreme Court jurisprudence.

It is that judgment that Sanderson is now asking the Supreme Court of Canada to overturn.

The legal question — and why it goes beyond this case

The heart of Sanderson’s application is not her personal case. She devotes a substantial part of her brief to documenting a pattern across Canadian appellate courts — Quebec, British Columbia, Alberta, Prince Edward Island, the Federal Court — where recusal motions based on a judge’s prior involvement are systematically dismissed by means of a general presumption of impartiality, without the rigorous three-step factual analysis the Supreme Court established in Wewaykum Indian Band v. Canada, 2003 SCC 45.

What the Supreme Court established in 2003

In Wewaykum, the Supreme Court established a three-step test: first, a presumption of judicial impartiality — which holds unless rebutted; second, a highly fact-specific inquiry — the Court wrote, in so many words, that « there are no shortcuts »; third, a particular application where the question arises after judgment rather than before.

According to the brief, Canadian appellate courts almost all apply only the first step — the presumption — without conducting the factual analysis required by the second. They rely instead on Yukon Francophone School Board v. Yukon, 2015 SCC 25 — which did not concern a judge’s prior involvement in a related file, but their participation in a cultural organization.

Twelve decisions, five jurisdictions, the same reflex

Quebec Court of Appeal: O’Connor c. Giancristofaro, 2022 QCCA 1402 and 1403; Plouffe c. Balayage Blainville inc., 2024 QCCA 106; Duguay c. Procureur général du Québec, 2025 QCCA 1374. British Columbia Court of Appeal: L.D.B. v. A.N.H., 2023 BCCA 480; Wang v. Sullivan, 2024 BCCA 266; Walker v. Kierans, 2024 BCCA 118. Alberta Court of Appeal: Moshinsky-Helm v. Helm, 2021 ABCA 373. Prince Edward Island Court of Appeal: Johnston v. Stewart McKelvey Stirling Scales, 2014 PECA 8. Federal Court of Appeal: Oberlander v. Canada (Attorney General), 2019 FCA 64.

The structural problem

Sanderson also raises a structural problem that is difficult to dismiss: under the current framework, a litigant who believes a judge should recuse themselves must make that request before the very judge whose impartiality is in question. If that judge refuses, appellate review is limited. And if the appellate courts merely endorse that refusal without analyzing the facts, the guarantee becomes theoretical.

What the documents reveal

The search and seizure — August 29, 2024

Less than an hour before a scheduled hearing, the Barreau du Québec served a motion seeking a warrant to enter Sanderson’s personal residence, by force, and seize her computers and client files. Justice David Roberge granted the warrant that same morning. Justice Ian Demers would later acknowledge, in his own judgment, that this motion had been filed in the wrong judicial district — Montreal instead of Longueuil or Iberville, where Sanderson maintained her practice in Carignan.

One detail is particularly significant: in a letter dated August 28, 2024 addressed to Me Leila Kadri — the designated assignee of Sanderson’s files — Me Dyotte had himself granted until 5:00 p.m. on August 29 to confirm which files she agreed to take. The search warrant was granted at 2:25 p.m. — that is, two and a half hours before the expiry of the deadline the syndic had himself set. The Barreau therefore proceeded with the seizure before the voluntary transfer process it had itself proposed could even be completed.

Justice Demers and the $18,801.32 — September 2025

According to the stenographic notes filed in support of the application, Justice Demers reportedly made more than 20 objections on behalf of the Barreau du Québec during testimony lasting less than two hours — while the Barreau’s lawyers who were present were not objecting themselves. He reportedly reduced the Barreau lawyer’s cross-examination time from 30 to 20 minutes, and raised his voice at Sanderson on several occasions.

A verifiable fact Justice Marcotte could not have ignored

A few weeks before the hearing before Demers, the Quebec Court of Appeal — including Justice Marcotte on the panel — had itself intervened to overturn another Demers judgment in which exaggerated costs had been ordered: Darcon et Cie inc. c. Mistral Ventilation inc., 2026 QCCA 72. That precedent is verifiable on CanLII.

In other words: Justice Marcotte knew, through her own recent participation on an appellate panel, that Justice Demers had already been corrected for imposing excessive costs. She nonetheless refused to recuse herself on February 27, 2026 — and confirmed her judgment on March 17, 2026.

The Gratton-Emery contradiction

On May 24, 2024, before Justice Benoit Emery, Barreau lawyer Me Sophie Gratton argued — three times, according to the stenographic notes — that Sanderson’s appeal before the Professions Tribunal would automatically suspend execution of the sanction. Justice Emery dismissed the stay application on that basis. Four days later, the syndic sought Sanderson’s permanent disbarment — or her suspension throughout the appeal process.

Before Justice Marcotte on December 12, 2024, Me Gratton explained that she had not had time to speak with the syndic « the very morning » of the hearing before Emery. The brief points out that the stenographic notes indicate that hearing took place in the afternoon. Neither the first Marcotte judgment nor the judgment under appeal addresses this point.

Full timeline

August 29, 2024. Justice David Roberge issues, from the bench, a warrant allowing the Barreau to search Sanderson’s personal residence by force. The Barreau’s sui generis motion was served at 9:00 a.m. The hearing began at 10:27 a.m. Judgment rendered at 2:25 p.m. — that is, 2.5 hours before the 5:00 p.m. deadline that Me Dyotte had himself granted to Me Kadri.

December 13, 2024. First judgment of Justice Marcotte in file 500-17-129627-249 — Sanderson c. Dyotte, 2024 QCCA 1718. The judge refuses leave to appeal the search warrant. The omission of the words « nonobstant appel » is characterized as a « clerical error ». The Barreau will never seek correction.

September 3, 2025. Hearing before Justice Ian Demers on Sanderson’s application for revocation. According to the appeal brief: 20+ objections by the judge on behalf of the Barreau, cross-examination time reduced from 30 to 20 minutes, raised voice on several occasions.

September 16, 2025. Justice Demers dismisses the revocation, declares it abusive and orders Sanderson to pay $18,801.32 to the syndic. A first in Quebec, according to the brief.

February 25-26, 2026. Sanderson requests a postponement of the hearing. Refused. On the evening of the 26th, she files a formal recusal application based on the maxim nemo judex in causa sua.

February 27, 2026. Justice Marcotte refuses to recuse herself from the bench. She hears the four leave applications the same day — Sanderson c. Dyotte, 2026 QCCA 268.

March 17, 2026. Justice Marcotte dismisses the four leave applications on the merits — Sanderson c. Dyotte, 2026 QCCA 356.

May 3, 2026. Application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. 469 pages. Self-representation. The question raised: the application of the Wewaykum test by all Canadian appellate courts.

What this means for the Sanderson-Roberge file

Readers of EnDroit.ca’s five-part investigation into the Sanderson-Roberge affair will recognize the thread. The disbarment at the heart of this Supreme Court application is the same disbarment documented in article 3 of that series — the one that was followed, six days later, by a call from the DPCP’s office to the Barreau, about the Roberge file specifically.

Sanderson’s disciplinary proceedings and her criminal defence work in the Roberge file are legally distinct matters. But they involve the same person, the same institutions, and what EnDroit.ca has documented as a recurring pattern:

If Sanderson is right on the merits — and that is for the Supreme Court to determine — then the mechanism by which Canadian appellate judges refuse to recuse themselves without conducting a factual analysis would itself be an element of that pattern, but on a pan-Canadian scale.

Where things stand

Sanderson’s 22-month disbarment is set to end at the end of June 2026. The expiry of the disbarment does not mean automatic re-entry on the Roll of the Barreau.

The Supreme Court of Canada must now decide whether or not to grant leave to appeal. That decision usually takes several months. If leave is granted, the question of how Canadian appellate courts handle recusal motions for prior involvement would be squarely placed before the highest court in the country.

EnDroit.ca will follow this file.

Right of reply

Before publication, EnDroit.ca submitted a request for comment to the Barreau du Québec, to assistant syndic Me Sébastien Dyotte, and to the firm Sarrazin Plourde, which represents him. Any response received will be published in full.

EnDroit.ca reminds readers that Jacqueline Sanderson was in fact found guilty by the Barreau’s Disciplinary Council, that the allegations contained in her appeal brief are contested by the Barreau, and that the legal conclusions on the conduct of Justices Marcotte and Demers will ultimately belong to the Supreme Court of Canada. What this update documents is the existence of a substantial brief, filed according to the rules, raising a legal question of pan-Canadian importance — and the fact that this question has not yet been decided on the merits.

Documents

All documents in this file — judgments, court records, correspondence and supporting exhibits, including the 469-page application for leave to appeal filed at the Supreme Court of Canada on May 3, 2026 — are available on the « Pièces au soutien des enquêtes » (Exhibits in support of the investigations) page of EnDroit.ca.