Complaints were made against a judge who heard a trial for contempt of court and sentenced an elderly aboriginal woman to imprisonment

20070005 - Complaints were made against a judge who heard a trial for contempt of court and sentenced an elderly aboriginal woman to imprisonment. The woman was in poor health and died soon after. At trial, the woman had declined to present her case and make submissions, claiming that the court did not have jurisdiction in light of the Royal Proclamation of 1763. The judge was not aware of the aboriginal woman’s fragile health. At a subsequent trial in a related matter, the judge was advised that the woman, now in prison, was in failing health. One party informed the court that they had previously sent a letter to the judge about this matter. The complainants requested a review of the judge’s decision, and an inquiry into the prison conditions.

After reviewing the entire proceedings that gave rise to this complaint, the conduct committee determined that the complaints were, in fact, about the judge’s decision. The letter sent to the judge regarding the aboriginal woman’s fragile health was in fact never seen by the judge. The vice-chairperson of the conduct committee found that this was normal. Judges cannot accept communications from individual litigants outside of the courtroom, as this would constitute a serious breach of the right to an impartial hearing. Communications must be made in open court. For this reason, the judge was not made aware of any such correspondence, and was not informed of the accused’s health issues. Once the judge had pronounced her sentence, her role in that case was effectively ended. As there was no issue of conduct, the complaint was dismissed. One of the complainants expressed concern about how his complaint was handled, saying that there was not a proper review of the allegations. The chairperson of the conduct committee conducted a new review and decided that the case had been properly dismissed. On the issue of prison conditions, he pointed out that the conditions of a detention centre and its health care services are not within the mandate of the Council to review.

Canadians expect the highest standards of civility on the part of judges. Court proceedings are serious matters which often affect individual rights and freedoms. Civility and decorum promote respect for both the legal process and for the people who are affected by judicial decisions.

The following complaint follows an incident of incivility in the courtroom.