The complainant had made a complaint against 10 judges of the same Court, who had presided at various proceedings involving the complainant

20050005 - The complainant had made a complaint against 10 judges of the same Court, who had presided at various proceedings involving the complainant. The complaint was dismissed by the Chairperson of the Judicial Conduct Committee. The complainant then made a new complaint against the Chairperson, alleging that the initial complaint was dismissed for “reasons of convenience” and that the complaints process was designed to protect judges.

The new complaint was referred to the Vice-chairperson of the Judicial Conduct Committee. He found that there was nothing to support the complainant’s allegation that the initial complaint was dismissed for reasons of convenience. Indeed, he found that the initial complaint had been thoroughly reviewed.

With respect to the suggestion that the process of review of complaints was unfair, the Vicechairperson advised the complainant that the practice, by the Judicial Council, of peer review of allegations of misconduct is similar to the practice followed by most professional bodies. Where the Council is concerned, a complaint against a judge from one region of the country is reviewed by a Chief Justice or Associate Chief Justice from another region, so that complaints are not reviewed by members of the same Court, or even the same jurisdiction. The Vice-chairperson referred to the 2002 decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Moreau-Bérubé matter, where the Court held:To have disciplinary proceedings conducted by a judge’s peers offers the guarantees of expertise and fairness that judicial officers are sensitive to, while avoiding the potential perception of bias or conflict that could arise if judges were to sit in court regularly in judgment of each other. As Gonthier J. made clear in Therrien, other judges may be the only people in a position to consider and weigh effectively all the applicable principles, and evaluation by any other group would threaten the perception of an independent judiciary.

As the complaint was against a member of Council,it was referred to an outside lawyer who indicated his agreement that the complaint be dismissed.