Canadian Judicial Council - Criticisms

Criticisms

There have been many criticisms over the past couple decades that the Canadian Judicial Council (CJC) is not fulfilling its mandate. The CJC has only recommended the removal of about 5 Judges in its forty year history even though it has probably received about 15,000 complaints. In September 2003, the Canadian Justice Review Board (CJRB) expressed public concern that the CJC is far too secretive. "The judges are paid out of the public purse and they are performing a public function in a public place. Given those things, people have a right to know what is going on within the judiciary. One thing that we think is important is to let judges and other people in the judicial system know that they are being looked at and scrutinized " said then-CJRB Chairman and UWO Law Professor Robert Martin The CJRB also sent a complaint Letter to the Auditor General of Canada.

A Facebook Page (Canadian Judicial Council Complaints Forum) has also been established for people to register their complaints against the Canadian Judicial Council and Judges. The creator of the page expressed concern that the Federal Department of Justice refused to investigate any complaints against the CJC on the grounds of judicial independence. Tellingly, the page has hardly any followers.

One criticism levelled at the CJC is that it is composed only of Judges. Some say that the review of complaints, in particular, should not be the exclusive domain of Judges but should include others. Critics point to other Judicial Councils, such as provincial bodies which include the participation of lawyers and members of the public.

At the national level, the composition of judicial disciplinary bodies varies extensively. In the United States, while Judges are involved in the review of complaints at the Federal level, the Congress has the power of Impeachment, and can remove any Judge from office. In the United Kingdom of Great Britain, complaints are initially reviewed by advisory committees made up of members of the judiciary, the legal profession, the magistracy and the public. A fully independent ombudsman (http://www.judicialombudsman.gov.uk) can review decisions relating to complaints. However, any decision to discipline a Judge, short of removal from office, rests with the judiciary.

Some have also asked that complaints against Judges be made public. Anyone who wishes to complain against a Judge can do so publicly in the media, and many do. However, it is extremely rare for media organizations to actually report on judicial complaints. In such cases, the Council's practice has been to publicize the outcome of the complaint. This was the case, for example, in regard to a complaint made against the Chief Justice of Canada: http://www.cjc-ccm.gc.ca/english/news_en.asp?selMenu=news_2008_0925_en.asp. In reality, almost all complaints to the CJC are kept private between the complainant, the CJC and the Judge. This means that members of the public, and even the Department of Justice, have no knowledge whatsoever about a Judge's history of complaints. There could be dozens of complaints against a Judge, and nobody but the CJC and the Judge would know about it unless the matter is made public by the complainant or becomes the subject of investigation by an inquiry committee of the Council.