A complainant wrote to Council expressing concern about what she believed was an unreasonable delay in releasing the decision of the Court. In her response to the complaint, the judge expressed regret and apologized for the delay, saying "I am sincerely sorry for the delay in finalizing the Reasons for Judgment. I understand how very important this case is to the complainant." The judge provided further comments about the delays in this case. While she initially thought the decision could be written shortly after the trial, the actual writing of the reasons proved to be more demanding in light of the complexity of the issues. In commenting, the judge's Chief Justice noted that the decision was quite lengthy and contained 426 paragraphs. The judge also had to undertake some research to review key points of law. At the same time, she was required to preside over a second degree murder trial which took longer than expected. As the accused in that trial was in custody pending the decision in that case, she had a duty to give priority to that case. Additionally, the judge unexpectedly had surgery in April 2012 and her recovery took longer than anticipated. The judge regretted these delays and wrote "I apologize for the worry and concern which my delay caused to the complainant".

The member of the Conduct Committee who reviewed the matter noted that the litigants had been proceeding in court for 15 years. He appreciated that this added delay in rendering a decision had caused the complainant additional stress. However, in light of all the circumstances, including the judge's explanation and apology, he came to the view that the matter did not warrant further intervention by the Council.

The complainant is an observant Jew. She was called for jury duty on dates that corresponded with the Jewish holiday of Sukkot (Monday 1 October and Tuesday 2 October 2012). She attended at the court house for jury selection on 28 September 2012. She intended to tell the judge that she would not be available on the October dates. About 300 people were called for jury duty. The judge separated the potential jurors into groups of 40 in order to facilitate the challenge for cause process. Before the complainant had a chance to speak to the judge, a Rabbi was called forward and he explained he would not be available due to the Sukkot holiday. The Rabbi was excused. The complainant then "spoke out" asking the judge if she could also be excused? The judge responded, "No, you are not a Rabbi" and told the complainant she would have to wait until it was her turn to be called forward. The complainant was not given the opportunity to further explain her situation on that day. She was instructed to return on 1 October when the challenge for cause process would continue.

The complainant returned to the court house on 1 October and brought with her a letter from her own Rabbi, which she presented to the judge. She explained that Sukkot required that Jews not work on this day. The judge excused her from jury duty.

The complainant alleged that on 28 September the judge used language that was inappropriate, rude and callous. She says she wrote to the CJC because she was "deeply upset" about the "insensitive attitude" of the judge. She also said she was complaining because the judge ordered her to act in a way that contravenes her religious beliefs.

Procedural issues, such as how to organize jury selection, are legal issues and a judge may use his discretion in respect of how he chooses to structure these proceedings. As such, this portion of the complainant did not warrant further consideration.

There appears to have been a misunderstanding by the judge that by attending court on 1 October, that would in itself be a contravention of the complainant's religious beliefs. It was unfortunate that the complainant was not given a chance to explain the situation on the initial day of the proceedings, however this appears to have been as a result of scheduling, and no malice was intended. All judges have an obligation to treat everyone who appears in court with appropriate courtesy. In this particular case, the judge may not have conveyed the appropriate amount of consideration and sensitivity and the judge offered an apology and wrote that he did not intend to offend the complainant or her religious beliefs.
Based on the above, the complaint file was closed.

The complainant is a journalist who was reporting on a trial. The three accused were charged with murder. Due to the contentious nature of the trial and the volatility of the accused, the lawyers had been ordered to not approach witnesses during their testimony. There was also some evidence of witness intimidation by others in the courtroom, such as gesturing and making comments to witnesses while they were testifying. During a break, a witness was outside the courthouse smoking. The journalist approached the witness and asked if she could take her picture. The witness became upset and refused to have her picture taken. When the court reconvened, the witness was still upset and refused to take the stand to testify. The judge was made aware of the situation and asked to speak to the journalist before the court. She then ordered the journalist not to approach any witnesses during their testimony. The journalist complained that this order only applied to her and would put her at a disadvantage vis-a-vis other media outlets. Also, the journalist was concerned that this order - and the judge requesting to speak to her in court - showed a broader issue of the judge's bias towards the media.

The judge explained that she was very concerned about the well-being of the witnesses and the potential for a mistrial if a witness could not testify. The judge spoke to the journalist firmly and directly. The judge did not allow the journalist to explain her actions, as she felt this was not the time to engage in a debate with the journalist. While the judge did not allow the journalist to explain why she asked to take the witness' picture, considering all of the material, and the circumstances surrounding this case, it was found that the judge's conduct was appropriate, and regardless the order is a legal issue, and the journalist and her media outlet could have appealed the judge's order, which they did not. Further, there was no evidence of bias towards the media or the journalist. The order applied to all media outlets, not just the journalist, so there was no advantage to other media outlets as a result of the order.

It was found that this complaint did not warrant further consideration.

The complainant immigrated to Canada from Israel with his wife and two children. He also has a daughter from a previous relationship who is in the process of moving to Canada. The daughter is the subject of the litigation, as the complainant alleges she was "kidnapped" from his home by her biological mother and uncle in 2011. The complainant contacted a lawyer and began proceedings and mediation.

The complainant appeared before the judge at two case conferences. At the first case conference the complainant agreed, through his lawyer, to sign documents in order to have the daughter's Israeli passport renewed, as well as sign other documents necessary for her immigration to Canada. At the second case conference, the complainant had retained new counsel and claimed he did not agree to sign the documents and refused to do so. The court awarded $500 costs against the complainant. The complainant's first language is not English and he says he has trouble understanding what occurred in court and that when he tried to explain this the judge "waved his hand" at the complainant, dismissing him, and thus denying the complainant his "right to understand" what was happening in court. He also alleges a court interpreter expressed his personal opinions to the judge and when the complainant explained to the judge that the interpreter was not relaying the correct interpretation, the judge replied saying, the next time the complainant can hire his own interpreter.

The complainant also alleges that the judge refused to listen to him, demonstrated aggression towards him, would not let his lawyer speak and the judge stated if the complainant continued to "apply" to the judge, he would be arrested.

The complainant wants the Case Conference recognized as invalid and he wanted the opportunity to negotiate a settlement with the other party.

The judge admitted he was exasperated and impatient, as the complainant refused to sign the passport application and documents, despite having given his agreement to do so. Given these admissions, it is possible that his comments regarding the interpreter may have also been presented in an impatient tone, as suggested by the complainant.

Judges must at all times preside with serenity. As noted in Ethical Principles, "Judges should avoid comments, expressions, gestures or behaviour which reasonably may be interpreted as showing insensitivity to or disrespect for anyone" (Chapter 5, Equality, Commentary 4). The judge apologized for his impatience and recognized that his manner and tone of us were inappropriate.

The complainant's other allegation regarding his counsel not being able to speak were found to be without merit.

The Counsel does not have the jurisdiction to recognize a Case Conference was invalid or to order parties to negotiate a settlement.

Based on the above, and given the judge's genuine apology, the complaint file was closed.

The Council received a complaint against four judges involved in a case regarding custody and access rights of the children of a separated couple. The complainant alleged that all the judges were biased, that their rulings were erroneous in law and that their appreciation of the evidence was faulty. She also asked that the proceedings continue before a different judge in a different jurisdiction, alleging that her complaint to the Council would disqualify the judges named in her complaint from hearing her case.

After a careful review of the allegations, it was determined that the complaint was in reality an expression of the complainant's disagreement with the various decisions that were made in her case, which falls outside the mandate of the Council. As for the allegations of bias on the part of the judges, the complainant provided no details to substantiate them, other than her disagreement with the judges' decisions.

With regard to the complainant's view that the judges named in her complaint would disqualify them from hearing her case, the Court of Appeal of British Columbia, in the matter of Holland v. Marshall, clearly stated that a complaint to the Council constitutes no basis for interfering with a judicial hearing. The complaints process is not an appeal process. It is for the judge hearing the case to decide, on the presentation of a proper motion, whether he or she should be disqualified from a case because of a complaint.

The Council wrote to the complainant to explain that it has no authority to review a judicial decision for the purpose of determining its correctness, nor to change or rescind a judgment. The appropriate recourse lies with the courts. The Council also explained that the conclusions and findings of a judge made during a hearing fall under his or her judicial decision-making authority. These decisions do not constitute issues of judicial misconduct and do not fall within the mandate of the Council.

Consequently, the complainant was informed that her complaint did not warrant further consideration and that no other action would be taken.

The Council received a complaint from a woman alleging that the judge hearing her case was biased and not impartial. The complainant also alleged that the judge behaved improperly and was aggressive toward her and some of the witnesses. She complained that the judge violated international laws and conventions, as well as the Ethical Principles for Judges.

In reaching decisions on matters before them, judges exercise judicial decision-making authority. This includes assessing the evidence and arguments presented by the parties, as well as applying the law. One of the most important roles of a judge is to weigh the evidence and decide which party's position to accept. This necessarily includes assessing the credibility of the parties and witnesses. The fact that a judge finds the evidence of one party or a witness believable, and that of another not credible, does not mean that the judge was biased or partial. It is instead a core component of the judge's decision-making authority.

Even if a judge erred in his or her assessment of the evidence or application of the law, the Council has no authority to review such matters. The appropriate recourse is to appeal the decision to a higher court.

After a review of all the facts in this matter, it was found that the complainant did not raise any issue of judicial misconduct. As a result, the complainant's allegations were dismissed and she was informed that her complaint did not warrant further consideration.

The Council received a complaint from someone who made numerous allegations against the judge presiding at his trial, including that the judge allowed evidence submitted by the police and did not accept his own evidence. The complainant also alleged that the judge was biased and based his decision on the opinions of others. In addition, the complainant alleged that the judge did not allow for a French trial or proper representation in French.

One of the most important duties of a judge is to assess credibility and make findings of fact about the evidence presented. In and of itself, this is not an indication that the judge is taking sides, or is biased in any way. After a careful review of the complainant's allegation of bias, it was determined that his perception of bias was in reality an expression of his disagreement with the judge's decision.

As for the complainant's allegation that the judge did not properly consider his evidence, this would be a matter to take up with the courts, possibly by way of appeal, since the Council has no mandate to examine the decisions of judges nor to assess the correctness of their decisions.

With regard to the complainant's allegation that the judge did not allow for a trial in French or proper French representation, it was determined, after a careful review of the facts, that an interpreter was present at all times during the proceedings and that the judge provided the complainant with access to the interpreter. Further, such procedural issues are matters to be raised with the courts, and are not considered issues of judicial conduct.

Since none of the allegations raised any issue of judicial misconduct, the complainant's allegations were dismissed and he was informed that his complaint did not warrant further consideration.

The Council received a complaint from someone who raised allegations of misconduct on the part of a judge when he was still a lawyer. The complaint related to the judge's involvement in a case prior to his appointment as a judge.

Although the Council has the authority to review a complaint in respect of a judge even if the alleged conduct that is the subject of the complaint occurred prior to the judge's appointment to the Bench, it is notably in circumstances where a judge's conduct could affect his or her capacity to continue to hold judicial office that the Council will act on a complaint.

After carefully reviewing the allegations, the Council found that the complaint did not raise any issue of judicial misconduct on the part of the judge. Rather, the complainant objected to the way his former lawyer had handled his case. As a result, it was deemed that this particular complaint did not warrant any further consideration. As a result, the complainant's allegations were dismissed and he was informed accordingly.

A complainant wrote to the Council alleging that the judge hearing her divorce case was biased against her and in conflict of interest because of an alleged relationship with a family member of the opposing party. She asked that the Council intervene to have a different judge assigned to her case.

After a careful review of the complaint, it was determined that the allegation of bias on the part of the judge was unsubstantiated, since the complainant provided no concrete information in support of her allegation. The complainant's personal opinion or disagreement with certain orders made by the judge are not evidence of bias. The Supreme Court of Canada, in the matter of Wewaykum Indian Band v. Canada, stated that impartiality is the fundamental qualification of a judge and the core attribute of the judiciary. It is the key to our judicial process and must be presumed.

As for the complainant's allegation of a relationship and ongoing communication between the judge and a family member of the opposing party, the Council found that it did not warrant further consideration, since the allegation was vague and based on simple hearsay or personal belief.

With respect to the complainant's request that her case be assigned to another judge, the Council has no authority in administrative matters relating to courts, nor does it have any authority in the assignment of judges to cases or in matters of recusal. Only the judge hearing a case may decide, on a properly presented motion, whether he or she should recuse himself or herself.

Since none of the allegations raised any issue of judicial misconduct, the complainant's allegations were dismissed and she was informed that her complaint did not warrant further consideration.