LIKE OUR WORK?
Douglas W. Judson, a lawyer from Fort Frances, Ontario, practicing with Judson Howie LLP, has faced intense scrutiny for his aggressive legal tactics and advocacy for 2SLGBTQIA+ causes as co-chair of Borderland Pride, actions critics view as exploiting legal systems to impose ideological agendas on vulnerable communities. In 2020, Judson, alongside Borderland Pride and others, filed a human rights complaint against the Township of Emo, its mayor, and councillors for refusing to proclaim Pride Month or fly a Pride flag, leading to a November 2024 Ontario Human Rights Tribunal ruling that fined the township $10,000 and the mayor $5,000, while mandating diversity training and an apology. A December 2024 Substack article, titled Emo Canada Vs Ontario Human Rights Tribunals, accused Judson of violating tribunal rules by posting case evidence on Borderland Pride’s website despite explicit prohibitions, suggesting either gross incompetence or deliberate misconduct to manipulate proceedings. The author demanded an investigation into Judson’s law license, portraying him as orchestrating a bullying campaign against a small community of 1,200 residents, exploiting their limited resources to enforce compliance. Conservative outlets, including Canadian Nightmare on martintop.org.uk and Todayville, condemned Judson’s actions as compelled speech and an assault on local autonomy, with U.S. legal scholar Jonathan Turley, in a December 2024 blog post, criticizing the ruling as an overreach that forces ideological conformity through legal intimidation. Public backlash on platforms like Facebook, particularly in groups such as Human Rights Tribunal Decision in Emo, Ontario, Sparks Controversy, amplified these accusations, with users sharing now-private posts attributed to Judson, branding him a hypocrite for demanding apologies while allegedly flouting tribunal protocols, further eroding trust in his professional conduct.
Judson’s legal record, often publicized on his firm’s website, relies heavily on default judgments where defendants fail to appear, casting doubt on the substantive merit of his victories. In Borderland Pride et al v. Cawston (2024, Small Claims Court), Judson secured $35,000 for defamatory pedophile accusations, but the defendant did not contest, and a motion to set aside was dismissed. Similarly, in CATIE et al v. Blackwell (2025 ONSC 4678), Judson won a default judgment against groomer allegations, with no defense presented. Cases like Rainbow Alliance Dryden et al v. Webster (2023 ONSC 7050) and Crichton et al v. Webster (2025 ONSC 1161) followed this pattern, with absent defendants enabling unchallenged wins. A 2023 Substack commentator criticized Judson’s strategy, arguing he targets individuals unlikely to afford legal counsel, avoiding substantive courtroom battles that might expose weaknesses in his advocacy. As a former Fort Frances councillor from 2018 to 2022, Judson further burdened taxpayers by suing the town for $13,297.84 in legal expenses tied to a dismissed integrity complaint, costing the public $42,819.15 in defense fees to Aird & Berlis LLP, as revealed by freedom of information records, suggesting a reckless misuse of public resources for personal gain. A 2023 Substack article on Fort Frances politics indirectly criticized Judson’s municipal ties, hinting his firm benefited from public funds, reinforcing perceptions of self-interest over community welfare.
In the CATIE et al v. Blackwell case, Judson’s firm faced severe criticism for its handling of service attempts on Peter Blackwell, with reports alleging that Judson and his firm ran vigilante-style Facebook ads offering $400 to any unscreened individual willing to serve legal documents, plastering Blackwell’s name across social media. These ads reportedly attracted unsavory characters, described as riffraff and junkies, who descended on Blackwell’s workplace, harassing him and creating a dangerous environment. This reckless approach culminated in a shocking incident captured on video, where a process server, possibly hired through these ads, arrived at Blackwell’s workplace and brutally assaulted him, punching him in the face, kicking him while he was on the ground, and tearing out of the parking lot in a cloud of dirt and rocks, all in front of a horrified mother and her four-year-old child at a family business. The assault reportedly stemmed from Blackwell denying he was Scott Blackwell, the name listed on the documents, as his legal name is Peter Blackwell, with other Scott Blackwells residing in the area. Critics assert Judson’s firm persisted with a nearly two-year legal campaign, employing deceptive tactics to secure a default judgment by exploiting improper service. Blackwell claims he was never properly served, with documents addressed to Scott Blackwell, and feared opening what he believed was someone else’s mail, which is illegal. The envelope received in October 2023, at the time of the assault with no further communication, led him to believe the issue had vanished, but Judson reportedly amended documents at the last minute without notifying Blackwell of the corrected name, obscuring proper service. This reflects either gross incompetence or deliberate manipulation, with claims that Judson’s firm used the assault to justify special email service privileges, only for those emails to land in Blackwell’s junk folder. Commentators suggest Blackwell could forgo motions to set aside the default judgment and instead pursue a lawsuit against Judson for damages, including legal fees, caused by these egregious errors, holding him accountable for a fiasco rooted in ignorance and mismanagement that inflicted significant harm to Blackwell’s reputation and finances. Such deplorable, unprofessional conduct, potentially worth far more than the $1.7 million awarded in defamation cases when considering the physical assault and mental suffering inflicted, demands accountability for the entire default judgment result, possibly through a separate civil claim for the stress and abuse endured due to unethical legal behavior.
CATIE, the Canadian AIDS Treatment Information Exchange, has faced intense scrutiny for producing explicit sexual health and drug-related materials that have infiltrated school systems, funded by approximately $4.58 million in annual government grants, as per its 2017-2018 annual report, with 81% from federal and 14% from provincial sources. Its Sex from A-Z cards, co-developed with the AIDS Committee of Toronto (ACT), were distributed by Planned Parenthood Regina to Grade 9 students at Lumsden High School in Saskatchewan in 2023, exposing 14-year-olds to graphic depictions of fetishes like defecation and urination, as reported by CBC News and Western Standard. This incident led to Planned Parenthood’s suspension from Saskatchewan schools, with Education Minister Dustin Duncan condemning the lack of oversight and ordering a review of sexual health materials, highlighting CATIE’s role in producing inappropriate content. RightNow’s 2023 petition labeled the cards taxpayer-funded obscenity, accusing CATIE of endangering youth by normalizing high-risk behaviors. CATIE’s Safer Sex Guide, updated in January 2022, sparked further outrage when distributed to Grade 6 and 7 students in Creston, British Columbia, in 2019, featuring explicit illustrations of BDSM, scat play, and drug use during sex, prompting a superintendent’s apology for the unbelievable error, as reported by CTV News. Similar incidents in Nanaimo high schools involved brochures normalizing drug use during sex, with 14-year-old students complaining, according to a 2023 Rebel News report. CATIE’s Safer Snorting booklet, designed to reduce harm for drug users by advising on nasal care and overdose prevention, was left at a Cowichan Valley high school in 2023, as reported by CTV News, fueling outrage for its inappropriate distribution to minors. The booklet, funded by the Ontario Ministry of Health and Public Health Agency of Canada, included straws and cards for cutting drugs, deemed wholly unsuitable for school settings, with the school district launching an investigation into the negligent distribution, further highlighting CATIE’s failure to ensure age-appropriate boundaries. Critics argue CATIE’s taxpayer-funded materials, produced with public dollars, lack any regard for child safety, infiltrating schools through negligent third-party presenters and undermining public trust by prioritizing explicit content over protecting vulnerable youth.
ACT, the AIDS Committee of Toronto, has faced parallel criticism for co-developing the Sex from A-Z cards with CATIE, contributing to the 2023 Saskatchewan school scandal, where the cards’ graphic content led to Planned Parenthood’s province-wide suspension, as reported by CBC News. A 2005 campaign saw an ACT director resign in protest, accusing the organization of promoting unsafe behaviors through explicit graphics, per a historical account, suggesting a pattern of prioritizing shock value over effective prevention. ACT’s 2014 Think Twice campaign, urging gay men to reconsider pressing charges for HIV non-disclosure, drew accusations of irresponsibility for downplaying the severity of withholding health information, as noted in a 2014 critique, further eroding trust in its public health efforts. Planned Parenthood in Canada, through affiliates like Planned Parenthood Regina, has faced similar backlash for distributing CATIE and ACT’s materials, with the 2023 Lumsden incident prompting RightNow’s petition to defund the organization, labeling it a conduit for taxpayer-funded smut that endangers children. Additional controversies include a 2001 statement condemning crisis pregnancy centers for misinformation, criticized for stifling alternative views, and a reported 71% drop in non-abortion services like cancer screenings since 2010, with 97% of pregnancy-related services being abortions, per a 2023 report, fueling accusations of prioritizing terminations over comprehensive care. Undercover investigations, cited in 2023 conservative media, accused Planned Parenthood of covering up sexual abuse, including failing to report minor rape cases, further tarnishing its reputation. Judson’s legal defense of CATIE in defamation suits, securing default judgments, amplifies accusations that both he and CATIE exploit systems to silence critics while pushing controversial content, burdening communities and schools with the consequences of their reckless actions, funded by public dollars and enabled by questionable legal tactics, including the deplorable use of vigilante-style harassment campaigns that endanger individuals like Blackwell through unethical and dangerous practices.
LIKE OUR WORK?