Bill C-9 would amend the Judges Act to create a new process for the Canadian Judicial Council to consider allegations of wrongdoing not serious enough to justify removing a judge from office.

Minister David Lametti’s office recalls that this bill is the result of extensive collaboration with judges across the country. Some changes proposed by the Senate conflict with the bill’s intent to strengthen the oversight and effectiveness of the misconduct processMinister Lametti’s press secretary, Diana Ebadi, said in a written statement.

” Minister Lametti believes that the purpose of C-9 is to reform the judicial misconduct process, which is outdated and has sometimes proved ineffective and costly. The focus is on improving and building trust in the process, both among judges and the public. Their priority is passing legislation that achieves this goal. »

The House of Commons unanimously passed the bill in December, which would also set out when a judge can be removed from office and change the way the Judiciary Council communicates its recommendations to the Minister of Justice.

The Canadian Judicial Council has authority over federally appointed judges. It receives, examines and processes complaints about the behavior of these judges. The council is independent of the legislature and the executive.

Bill C-9 would also create a new committee to review complaints and decide whether a judge’s removal may be warranted. If not, the complaint could be dismissed or the review board could take action, which could include a reprimand, warning, or ordering a judge to apologize, undergo therapy, or attend an additional workshop.

Had the Review Board found the complaint sufficiently serious to consider removing a judge, it would refer the complaint to the Judicial Council for consideration of a judge’s formation full hearing panel. This committee would then be responsible for making a recommendation to the Minister of Justice.

Composition of the Audit Committee

The amendments proposed in the Senate, which are currently under consideration in the House of Representatives, deal with how complaints against judges can be dismissed, but also with the composition of the committee that decides how to deal with disciplinary measures and how decisions are appealed can be.

One of the amendments would remove some words from the bill that said: as far as possibleindividuals represented on disciplinary hearing panels should reflect the diversity of Canada’s population.

Another amendment adds the words sexual misconduct to a line in the bill that has only been discussed so far sexual harassmentto define more precisely how the different types of claims are to be examined.

In its original form, Bill C-9 would require the Judiciary Council to report publicly on the number of grievances it has received and how they have been resolved. However, the senators added a provision that the reasons for the rejection of complaints as well as other data on the identity of the complainant should also be given.

It was Senator Kim Pate of the Independent Senators Group who introduced this amendment for more data collection. She explained that this would allow the government to do so We need to understand who is the unhappiest, who can afford to sue judges, and who is disproportionately affected so that we can better educate judges and lawyers and create a just justice system.

Currently, anyone can lodge a complaint against a judge, but this must be in writing and forwarded to the Judicial Council.

Involve lay people

Conservative Sen. Denise Batters introduced an amendment to include different types of stakeholders in the appeals review process.

” People who are not lawyers or judges bring a different perspective to legal issues, and when issues of judicial discipline can have such an impact on public confidence in this system, it is important that lay people be involved in the process. »

Batters also managed to amend the bill in the Senate so that decisions could be appealed to the Federal Circuit.

The President of the Canadian Bar Association, Steeves Bujold, told a Senate committee that creating this option would improve scrutiny of judges’ conduct.

In the interests of natural justice, this ensures external control of the processsaid Mr. Bujold. He added that it is important to Canadian democracy that the public see an open and accountable application of judicial discipline with clear appeal mechanisms.

Another advantage of the right of appeal is that the federal circuit court is likely to present a detailed statement of reasons, so that the judge accused of wrongdoing and the public will then know why an independent court reached that conclusion.

The complaints process against judges received increased attention earlier this year when the Judiciary Council announced it was considering a complaint against Supreme Court Justice Russell Brown, who remains on leave pending the Council’s decision on the complaint.

The C-9 bill is not the Liberal government’s first attempt to reform the judicial conduct review process. His first attempt had taken the form of a Senate bill introduced in May 2021, but it fell through the motion paper ahead of the October 2021 election.

After the Liberals were re-elected, a new bill was introduced in the House of Commons in December 2021, but was withdrawn by the government and replaced by the current version.

If the government rejects any of the changes proposed by the Senate, the bill must be sent back to the House of Lords for final approval before it becomes law.