New Judge Misconduct Review System

Summary#

This bill replaces how the Canadian Judicial Council (CJC) reviews complaints about federally appointed judges. It creates a step-by-step system to handle less serious misconduct and updates how cases that could lead to removal from office move forward. It also applies to other federal office holders who serve “during good behaviour” (they keep their job unless removed for cause) (Part IV, Divisions 1–3).

• Sets up screening, review, hearing, and appeal stages, with options short of removal like warnings, training, or apologies (Division 1).
• Adds lay persons to panels, requires public selection criteria, and asks the CJC to consider diversity and official languages when forming rosters (Division 1).
• Makes hearings public by default and requires publishing decisions and reasons, with limits if privacy is needed (Division 1; Appeals).
• Allows anonymous complaints with safeguards; sexual harassment or discrimination complaints cannot be dismissed at screening (Division 1).
• Limits court challenges by making CJC decisions final except for an internal appeal and possible Supreme Court of Canada review (Division 4; Appeals).
• Pays panel costs, counsel, and certain legal fees from the federal Consolidated Revenue Fund (the government’s main account), with controls and public guidelines (Financial Provisions).

What it means for you#

• Households and the public

  • You can file a complaint about a federally appointed judge using the CJC’s form. Anonymous complaints are allowed if two CJC members find reasonable grounds to proceed (Division 1).
  • Hearings are public unless privacy or the public interest requires a closed session. Decisions and reasons are published as much as possible (Division 1; Appeals).
  • The CJC must issue an annual public report with counts of complaints, dismissals, panel reviews, and actions taken (Division 4).
  • Effective date: to be set by Cabinet after funds are appropriated (Coming into Force).

• Complainants

  • You will be told of decisions under CJC policies (Division 1).
  • Allegations of sexual harassment or discrimination (as defined in the Canadian Human Rights Act) cannot be dismissed at screening (Division 1).
  • Possible outcomes include a concern, warning, reprimand, apology, or mandatory training for the judge, even if removal is not justified (Division 1).

• Federally appointed judges

  • New process: screening officer, reviewing member, review panel, optional reduced hearing panel, full hearing panel, internal appeal panel, and possible leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada (Divisions 1–2; Appeals).
  • Rights include notice, counsel, the ability to be heard, present evidence, and cross‑examine witnesses (Division 1).
  • If a full hearing panel finds removal justified, pension time and contributions pause the day after you are notified, unless later reversed or not pursued (Salaries and Annuities).
  • Your legal fees for proceedings under the Act and any Supreme Court appeal may be paid from the Consolidated Revenue Fund, subject to regulations and guidelines. No payments are made for judicial review proceedings (Financial Provisions).
  • Some conflicts are barred: you cannot be judged by a panel member from your own court, and no one serves twice on the same matter (Division 1).

• Other federal “good behaviour” office holders (non‑judges)

  • A similar process can be used to review whether you should be removed from office. If removal is ordered by Cabinet on the Minister’s recommendation, the order and report must be tabled in Parliament (Division 3).
  • Cabinet may grant paid leave for infirmity when removal is recommended (Division 3).

• Provincial attorneys general and the Minister of Justice

  • You may request a full hearing panel to determine whether a judge’s removal is justified (Division 2).
  • The Minister must respond publicly to any removal recommendation and may request information from the panel (Report to Minister).

Expenses#

Estimated net cost: Data unavailable.

• Pays from the Consolidated Revenue Fund, subject to regulations and public guidelines, for:
  • Expenses of CJC members and roster judges doing duties under the new process (Financial Provisions).
  • Fees/expenses for lay panel members and lawyers serving as presenting counsel (Financial Provisions).
  • Fees/expenses for lawyers representing the judge in these proceedings and in any Supreme Court appeal; not for judicial review (Financial Provisions).
  • Fees/expenses for lawyers and experts hired by panels; and hearing costs (rooms, recording, transcription, translation, security) (Financial Provisions).
• Independent reviews of these financial provisions are required 18 months after the first report and every five years, with a public report on financial controls (Financial Provisions).
• The Act comes into force only after funds are appropriated by Parliament on the Governor General’s recommendation (Coming into Force).
• Specific dollar amounts, staffing needs, and expected annual costs or savings: Data unavailable.

Proponents' View#

• Creates clear, staged tools to address misconduct short of removal (concerns, warnings, reprimands, apologies, training), which were not as explicit before (Division 1).
• Improves public trust by adding lay persons to panels, publishing selection criteria, and considering diversity and official languages in rosters (Division 1).
• Increases transparency with public hearings by default, published reasons, a Minister’s public response to any removal recommendation, and an annual public report (Division 1; Report to Minister; Division 4).
• Reduces delay and litigation by making CJC decisions final except for an internal appeal and possible Supreme Court review, replacing multiple judicial reviews (Division 4; Appeals).
• Provides safeguards for access to the process: allows anonymous complaints with oversight and bars screening out harassment or discrimination complaints (Division 1).
• Builds cost controls and accountability through regulations, public guidelines by the Commissioner, and periodic independent reviews of financial practices (Financial Provisions).

Opponents' View#

• Open-ended fiscal exposure: the Act authorizes payment of panel costs, counsel, experts, and judges’ legal fees from the Consolidated Revenue Fund without set caps in the bill; actual costs depend on future regulations and guidelines (Financial Provisions). Data on expected totals is unavailable.
• Limits external oversight: “Decision final” language curtails judicial review, consolidating power within the CJC process, with only an internal appeal and possible Supreme Court route (Division 4).
• Process complexity: multiple stages (screening, review, reduced hearing, full hearing, appeal, possible Supreme Court), which could still cause delay and higher costs despite aims to streamline (Divisions 1–2; Appeals).
• Fairness concerns: acceptance of anonymous complaints, public hearings by default, and publication of reasons may risk reputational harm if not managed carefully, even with privacy safeguards (Division 1; Appeals).
• Potential perception of peer bias: panels include CJC members and judges, though mitigated by lay members and ineligibility rules (Division 1).
• Financial risk to judges: pension contributions pause after a full hearing panel’s “removal justified” decision, before any parliamentary address or final outcome; later reversals require back contributions, but interim cash flow is affected (Salaries and Annuities).