The complainant, convicted of tax shelter fraud, alleged that in dismissing his appeal the three judges of a Court of Appeal had "exceeded the limits of the law by splitting the appeal in the joint trial of two co-accused without taking into account the f

20020008 - The complainant, convicted of tax shelter fraud, alleged that in dismissing his appeal the three judges of a Court of Appeal had "exceeded the limits of the law by splitting the appeal in the joint trial of two co-accused without taking into account the fact that the inter-relation of new evidence to be submitted to a new judge of fact, properly instructed, was likely to infringe the complainant's right to have a fair and impartial trial". The complainant "wondered about" a "potential" conflict between one of the judges and "certain investors".

The complainant was informed of the Council's mandate and his right of appeal. He was told that any allegation of error could only be examined on appeal. It was noted that he had already applied for leave to appeal the Court of Appeal's decision to the Supreme Court of Canada, and that this was the proper forum in which to make his allegations. As regards his allegation of a "potential conflict of interest", the complainant was told that the evidence he had put forward in support of his argument was not such as to establish a connection of any kind between the judge and "certain investors". He was told that action by the Council in accordance with the Judges Act was not warranted.