Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Thank you for the invitation to appear before you today. It is both an honour and a privilege to be able to present the Canadian Bar Association's position with respect to the issues raised by the proposed amendment to the Judges Act, Bill C-9.

My name is Indra Maharaj, and I am the chair of the judicial issues subcommittee.

I would like to begin by recognizing that I am attending this meeting from the traditional territories of the Blackfoot Confederacy—Siksika, Kainai and Piikani—the Tsuut'ina and Stoney Nakoda nations, Métis Nation Region 3, and all people who make their homes in the Treaty 7 region of southern Alberta.

The CBA represents lawyers, law students, academics and judges across our entire country, where different first nations have made their homes and stewarded the lands that form our unique and beautiful Canada. I will pause for a few seconds of silence, so that each of us can acknowledge the treaty or traditional territory in our own location.

Thank you.

The Canadian Bar Association is a national association of 37,000 members, including judges, lawyers, academics and students across Canada, with a mandate to seek improvements in the law and the administration of justice. Specifically, with respect to Bill C-9—introduced on December 16, 2021—the Canadian Bar Association submitted commentary to this committee, on February 17, 2022, in support of the amendments proposed.

Among other things, the Judges Act establishes a discipline process for federally appointed judges in response to complaints filed about their conduct. Recent government consultations underscored concerns about the length of time required to investigate these complaints and the consequent costs of investigations, including the potential cost of a member of the bench being unable to fulfill their duties while defending a complaint for misconduct.

The CBA's recommendations are focused on ensuring that the objectives of protecting the independence of the judiciary and ensuring the public's confidence in the administration of justice are respected in the process.

Bill C-9 amends the process through which the conduct of federally appointed judges is reviewed by the CJC in three significant ways: It creates a process for reviewing allegations not serious enough to warrant removal from office; it improves the process by which recommendations for removal are made to the minister; and it ensures that the determination of pensionable service for judges ultimately removed from office reflects their time of service and does not include the time of review, all while ensuring that, if the judge is exonerated, they do not lose the time spent defending the claim made against them.

I have a little more detail.

First, the process for screening complaints that may not be serious enough to warrant removal from office is a positive development. It enhances the Canadian Judicial Council's capacity to respond quickly to allegations of misconduct and provides sanction options in these cases, such as counselling, continuing education and reprimands. This process saves the CJC time, ensures that judicial resources are well managed, and minimizes the amount of time a judge might potentially spend defending a frivolous complaint while not sitting on the bench.

Second, improving the discipline process ensures that meritorious claims are moved forward and department resources are used efficiently. It also promotes procedural fairness and is designed to minimize delays and control costs.

Third, it is critical that judges, like any other litigant, are able to defend their conduct in a fair, transparent process and be satisfied that, if they are ultimately exonerated, their pensionable service will be protected during the period of time dedicated to defending their case. However, it is equally important that time spent during that process does not contribute to pensionable service if the complaint results in removal of the judge from office.

Judicial independence and judicial accountability are both essential to ensuring the integrity of our judicial system, the primacy of the fair administration of justice and the support of the rule of law. If our judiciary is to be respected and trusted, the public must be confident that judges, through a fair and transparent process, are both independent of external influences and held accountable for their conduct on the bench.

Thank you. I'm happy to take any questions you may have.

Transcript

Discussions (0)