As an engineer, I need to comply with professional standards and best practices. If I cut corners or act against the best interest of the Canadian public, I can be disciplined by my professional association. The same applies to legal practitioners: they are regulated by provincial bar associations. But many judges are federal rather than provincial jurisdiction. This includes federal courts, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) and provincial superior courts. Those professionals are regulated by the Canadian Judicial Council (CJC), who can go as far as to recommend the removal of a judge by parliament. And the CJC has now – at least twice this year - proven it is incapable of fulfilling its duty to maintain the rule of law and the required ethics among federal judges..First case: SCC Justice Brian Riordan, Quebec. Riordan decided in April 2021 that the Quebec government was entitled to extend the state of medical emergency by decree every ten days, without any parliamentary oversight and discussion. This is very obviously against the law, since article 119 of Quebec’s Public Health Act states that parliament must decide about the extension of a medical emergency every four weeks. Although the text of the law allows for some flexibility with respect to an extension by government alone beyond the first ten days, its authors certainly never intended that this would continue for a full two calendar years..I filed a complaint against the judge with the CJC on March 28, this year. I explained that the judgement went against the law as the judge refused to end the practice of extending the state of emergency by decree, not because the law allows it but because parliament had not taken any action to prevent the government from continuing this practice. This is, of course, the reason why lawyer Stanislas Bricka filed the lawsuit in the first place: parliamentary inaction required the intervention of a superior court judge to force the government to abide by the law, which demands that democratic processes be maintained even during a medical emergency. Riordan clearly failed in his professional duty to maintain the rule of law and democracy in Quebec, essentially allowing François Legault to reign as if he was king. The suspicion is that Riordan decided this way for political reasons, maybe even due to political pressure from the premier’s office..On June 14, I received a reply signed by Ms. Jacqueline Corado, interim executive director of the CJC. She refused to take any action against the judge because, in her opinion, the judge acted within his rights and is entitled to decide cases according to his discretion. Although I replied, explaining that the judgement was against professional ethics and put in evidence that the judge failed to fulfill his responsibilities to maintain the rule of law, Ms. Corado insisted in her answer on August 10, that my argument was “without foundation” and that I was abusing the complaint system..The second case is much more publicized, and much closer to home for the CJC. A letter of complaint was published in the National Post and signed by 13 Canadian legal professionals, to discipline Supreme Court Justice Richard Wagner due to his comments on the Freedom Convoy. The judge went so far as to say that the Convoy “should never have happened”, clearly showing his bias and partiality in the on-going discussion around the federal government’s use of the Emergencies Act to end the protests in Ottawa. As Benson and Bussey have explained so well in the Epoch Times, Wagner acted against the standards he himself loudly proclaimed for judges by speaking openly about his personal views on the Freedom Convoy. Of course, there is an important detail: Wagner is the Chairman of the CJC, creating a powerful conflict of interest. So, Corado again refused to act, claiming in her reply on June 23, that the complaint was “merely hypothetical” and “does not concern judicial conduct.”.The CJC’s refusal to act leaves federal judges without any effective oversight, and Canadians without any assurance that the judicial system is still working reliably and impartially. The third branch of government, the judiciary, has been compromised in Canada – when it is most needed as some see this country on a pathway towards totalitarianism..Which implies that Parliament needs to take action: either the CJC is reformed so it can again fulfill its duties, or a different mechanism of oversight is needed, with a mandate to uphold the rule of law and protect the rights and freedoms of Canadians, and with staff and boards that are independent of the courts and individuals they are meant to guide and discipline..Martin Tampier P.Eng
As an engineer, I need to comply with professional standards and best practices. If I cut corners or act against the best interest of the Canadian public, I can be disciplined by my professional association. The same applies to legal practitioners: they are regulated by provincial bar associations. But many judges are federal rather than provincial jurisdiction. This includes federal courts, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) and provincial superior courts. Those professionals are regulated by the Canadian Judicial Council (CJC), who can go as far as to recommend the removal of a judge by parliament. And the CJC has now – at least twice this year - proven it is incapable of fulfilling its duty to maintain the rule of law and the required ethics among federal judges..First case: SCC Justice Brian Riordan, Quebec. Riordan decided in April 2021 that the Quebec government was entitled to extend the state of medical emergency by decree every ten days, without any parliamentary oversight and discussion. This is very obviously against the law, since article 119 of Quebec’s Public Health Act states that parliament must decide about the extension of a medical emergency every four weeks. Although the text of the law allows for some flexibility with respect to an extension by government alone beyond the first ten days, its authors certainly never intended that this would continue for a full two calendar years..I filed a complaint against the judge with the CJC on March 28, this year. I explained that the judgement went against the law as the judge refused to end the practice of extending the state of emergency by decree, not because the law allows it but because parliament had not taken any action to prevent the government from continuing this practice. This is, of course, the reason why lawyer Stanislas Bricka filed the lawsuit in the first place: parliamentary inaction required the intervention of a superior court judge to force the government to abide by the law, which demands that democratic processes be maintained even during a medical emergency. Riordan clearly failed in his professional duty to maintain the rule of law and democracy in Quebec, essentially allowing François Legault to reign as if he was king. The suspicion is that Riordan decided this way for political reasons, maybe even due to political pressure from the premier’s office..On June 14, I received a reply signed by Ms. Jacqueline Corado, interim executive director of the CJC. She refused to take any action against the judge because, in her opinion, the judge acted within his rights and is entitled to decide cases according to his discretion. Although I replied, explaining that the judgement was against professional ethics and put in evidence that the judge failed to fulfill his responsibilities to maintain the rule of law, Ms. Corado insisted in her answer on August 10, that my argument was “without foundation” and that I was abusing the complaint system..The second case is much more publicized, and much closer to home for the CJC. A letter of complaint was published in the National Post and signed by 13 Canadian legal professionals, to discipline Supreme Court Justice Richard Wagner due to his comments on the Freedom Convoy. The judge went so far as to say that the Convoy “should never have happened”, clearly showing his bias and partiality in the on-going discussion around the federal government’s use of the Emergencies Act to end the protests in Ottawa. As Benson and Bussey have explained so well in the Epoch Times, Wagner acted against the standards he himself loudly proclaimed for judges by speaking openly about his personal views on the Freedom Convoy. Of course, there is an important detail: Wagner is the Chairman of the CJC, creating a powerful conflict of interest. So, Corado again refused to act, claiming in her reply on June 23, that the complaint was “merely hypothetical” and “does not concern judicial conduct.”.The CJC’s refusal to act leaves federal judges without any effective oversight, and Canadians without any assurance that the judicial system is still working reliably and impartially. The third branch of government, the judiciary, has been compromised in Canada – when it is most needed as some see this country on a pathway towards totalitarianism..Which implies that Parliament needs to take action: either the CJC is reformed so it can again fulfill its duties, or a different mechanism of oversight is needed, with a mandate to uphold the rule of law and protect the rights and freedoms of Canadians, and with staff and boards that are independent of the courts and individuals they are meant to guide and discipline..Martin Tampier P.Eng
