A look at cases when judges judge themselves - CANADIAN JUDICIAL COUNCIL

They are the arbiters of the arbiters of justice, a council of Canadian judges whose collective gavel is used every so often to investigate and reprimand their peers.


Since its inception in 1971, the Canadian Judicial Council has held the power under the federal “Judges Act” to investigate complaints about any of the roughly 1,100 federally-appointed judges of Canada’s superior courts.


“Judges exercise tremendous power and tremendous responsibility in Canadian society . . . but nobody expects that judges are going to be flawless,” said University of Ottawa law professor Adam Dodek. “It reinforces public confidence that there is a process dealing with public complaints.”
The council, a 30-member board of chief justices, associate chief justices, and senior judges from provincial and federal superior courts across the country, receives “200 or so” complaints regarding judicial conduct every year, according to its website.


Most complaints are resolved within three months, but those containing serious allegations go through a multi-step process to determine whether the judge should be removed from office.
Serious allegations could result in a full public inquiry where a committee of council members and senior judges may recommend that the judge be removed. In that case, the Minister of Justice would bring the council’s recommendation to Parliament for final consideration.


These proceedings are rare, however.
The Canadian Judicial Council has referred just nine complaints to an inquiry committee in its 41-year history, including Lori Douglas, an associate chief justice of the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench whose public inquiry began earlier this month. Of the few times when a committee has recommended that a judge be removed from office, no judge has allowed Parliament decide their fate, resigning before that step is taken.


2009: Justice Paul Cosgrove
A former Scarborough mayor and Liberal cabinet minister, Ontario Justice Paul Cosgrove grabbed headlines in the late 1990s during a sensational murder case involving Julia Elliot,a former Barbados masseuse on trial for killing a mechanic.
After two years of pre-trial arguments, Cosgrove set Elliot free and instead said police and Crown attorneys had committed more than 150 violations of her Charter rights. Those charges, however, were overturned four years later when the Ontario Court of Appeal determined that Cosgrove’s conclusions were baseless.
At a judicial inquiry into Cosgrove’s handling of the case in 2009, a committee found that his misconduct was “pervasive in both scope and duration” and recommended that he be removed from office. He resigned two days later, before Parliament made its decision.


2008: Justice Theodore (Ted) Matlow
The Toronto resident and Ontario Superior Court Justice wound up before a judicial inquiry in 2008 after he became involved in a citizen’s committee that opposed a development proposal for a retail-condominium complex in his Forest Hill neighbourhood.
A judicial inquiry was called and a five-person inquiry committee concluded that there were grounds for the CJC to recommend he be removed from office. . But, in Dec. 2008, the entire CJC decided not to follow the committee’s recommendation and allowed Matlow to keep his job..


2003: Justice Jean-Guy Boilard
The Canadian Judicial Council launched an inquiry into the conduct of Superior Court of Quebec Justice Jean-Guy Boilard after he recused himself from a Hells Angels trial in 2002. The committee concluded in 2003 that his decision to withdraw from the case was “improper,” but ruled that his actions did not warrant his removal from office.


2003: Justice Bernard Flynn
Superior Court of Quebec Justice Bernard Flynn landed in hot water after he allegedly made comments to a Le Devoir journalist in 2002 about a controversial land purchase outside Montreal. In 2003, a judicial committee said it “disapproved” of the statements made by Flynn, but concluded that his actions did not constitute misconduct. He remained in office.


1999: Justice Robert Flahiff
Quebec Superior Court Justice Robert Flahiff was brought before a judicial inquiry committee in 1999 after he was sentenced to three years in prison for money laundering, a crime that took place in the 1980s, prior to his appointment to the bench. Flahiff resigned after the committee recommended that he be removed from office.


1996: Justice Jean Bienvenue
Derogatory comments about women and the Holocaust brought Superior Court of Quebec Justice Jean Bienvenue before an inquiry committee in 1996. The committee — after reviewing the comments made during a sentencing hearing for Tracy Theberge, who was convicted of second-degree murder in the death of her husband — recommended his removal from office, but Bienvenue resigned before Parliament could decide his fate.


1994: Justice Fernand L. Gratton
Gratton, a judge of the Ontario Court of Justice, was accused in 1992 of continuing to receive a regular judicial salary over a two-year period despite the fact that he was unable to work due to medical problems, including a “severe and debilitating stroke.” In 1994, an inquiry committee began to examine whether Gratton should be removed from office due to “infirmity or incapacitation.” He resigned before the hearing concluded.


1990: Justice Gordon Hart, Justice Malachi Jones and Justice Angus Macdonald
The three Nova Scotia Appeal Court justices came under scrutiny after they partially blamed a Nova Scotia man for his wrongful murder conviction in 1983. In their inquiry decision, the judicial committee criticized the judges for “inappropriate language” levelled against the wrongly accused, Donald Marshall, but ultimately decided not to recommend the judges’ removal from office.


Note: This article was edited to correct a previous version that included errors about Justice Theodore Matlow.

Niamh Scallan
Staff Reporter  
THE STAR
Reference:
http://www.thestar.com/news/insight/article/1233075--lori-douglas-sex-scandal-inquiry-a-rare-public-inquiry-by-canadian-judicial-council

Moncton, City Mayor, George LeBlanc & "his" corrupt local Judiciary - Court of Queen's Bench, Moncton, Trial Division; SHELL GAME: fraud; involving last minute substitution of Judges, to cause the delay of 'hearing' of a " Motion (filled against George LeBlanc by his victim Andre Murray) to Strike - Fraudulent Evidence " false evidence - affidavites worn by oath then used by Mayor, George LeBlanc during his contrived ex parte hearing, thereby, further victimizing innocent Andre Murray

Date: November 6, 2012               

RE: Royal Bank of Canada & 501376 N.B. Ltd., a body corporate v. Andre Murray   MC/0642/09 

Facsimile to Clerk of the Court Fax  506 – 856 – 2951 

&  Solicitor George H. Leblanc Fax 506 856 8150

Attention Honorable Mr. Justice Zoël R. Dionne

Care of:  
Anne M. Richard,

Clerk of the Court

Judicial District of Moncton

145 Assumption Blvd. 

 Moncton, NB, E1C 8R3

 Dear Clerk of Court and whom it may concern:
                                                                            Kindly forward, without delay, to the Honorable Mr. Justice Zoël R. Dionne. 
Thank you.

NOTICE

Notice this is my Claim: 
                                       over the entire span of my many appearances before you Justice Zoël R. Dionne that is while you are acting as presiding Judge I have not experienced a fair/balanced, moreover an unbiased Court room hearing of any of the legal matters which concern me. 
 

Be advised: I have not submitted a Brief on this matter, because a Brief on this Motion will be a substantial undertaking, one which I am not capable to undergo in the circumstances of my medical/physiological diagnosed condition. Reasons, both legal and health wise.

However, I do claim that you Mr. Justice Zoël R. Dionne, cannot reasonably grant me the legal relief which I am seeking, because the consequence of doing so will reveal your past: 
 "reasonable apprehension of bias”, that, which, is evidenced by your numerous erroneous, biased - based decisions, during and after 'Court Hearings' of these subject matters concerning me .

 Furthermore, for you Mister Justice Zoël R. Dionne, to now, paradoxically, for the first time, grant me a fair hearing of my herein requested subject matters, will reasonably reveal your (to date) bias against me, furthermore, this subject hearing will require the review of the very same material, that, which, will again consequently reveal evidence of your inappropriate bias against me in these matters, as is and or was previously Court filed.

 Moreover, I am writing about the erroneous evidence (earlier treated by you Mr. Justice Zoël R. Dionne as legitimate) will be revealed during the 'Court Hearing' of this Motion scheduled to be heard October 6, 2012  (which I believe should be struck from the record) however, and nevertheless was and or is the foundation of your erroneous decisions to date (regarding my subject matters) as evidentially must have, therefore, been previously planned  and based on your personal bias, prior to said hearings, therefore, a premeditated  design to favor the solicitor “ Mayor of Moncton” a blatant design of such magnitude, that, which required collaboration with the solicitor “ Mayor of Moncton”  lawyer George H. LeBlanc, who I exposed as committing "Fraud upon the Court"; 'which I may add..., you Mr. Justice Zoël R. Dionne, in his stead, offered your own excuses for George LeBlanc, the solicitor, “ Mayor of Moncton,”  despite, and without receiving any substantive material evidence, that, which could have possibly vindicated the solicitor  George LeBlanc who is also “ Mayor of Moncton”.

This is of course, under the circumstances, a outrageously impossible task, nevertheless you Mister Justice Zoël R. Dionne appear to be eager to accommodate the solicitor “Mayor of Moncton” at each and every incident that George LeBlanc's dishonesty, (surrounding the subject matters) was and or is revealed.

To date, what is outstanding in my mind, regarding the within mentioned subject matters, and beginning, as early as the initial ex parte Court hearing of October 20, 2009, which you Mr. Justice Zoël R. Dionne conspicuously chose to grant an Eviction Order without taking Judicial Notice. 

For the reason, you Mr. Justice Zoël R. Dionne then neglected, to act appropriately, whereby, taking Judicial Notice would have caused what most readers would consider a conscientious presiding Judge, to be taking into account that I, the Defendant, in the matter of that ex parte Court hearing of October 20, 2009, was absent, further, that Jurisprudence, and well established precedent, would have required the presiding Judge over such a paradox, to issue a Summons, thereby requiring the absent party to attend.

However, despite well established protocol, you Mr. Dionne chose to grant the lawyer George LeBlanc, who happens to be “Mayor of Moncton" , his request to provide Vacant Possession of my residential home to his alleged Mortgagee Clients, for that reason, you Mr. Justice Zoël R. Dionne did issue Court Orders to evict me from my Residential Tenancy. 

For the sake of brevity, I will not explore in great depth the implications (in this subject matter) of your obvious (to me) negligent, biased decision, although it is undeniably, further, conspicuously evident, that you had no concern for 'Balance of Convenience' in your decision to grant an eviction Order against me - Ex Parte (without hearing the other side).  

I must add, that the Orders for my eviction, which you Mr. Justice Zoël R. Dionne issued resulted from an Ex Parte Court Hearing, were later revealed and unquestionably proven (beyond any doubt) that the solicitor George LeBlanc “Mayor of Moncton” had committed "Fraud upon the Court", to obtain this clandestine subject Order of Eviction.  
 

I pointed your attention Mr. Justice Zoël R. Dionne to sufficient evidence of George LeBlanc intentionally committing "Fraud Upon the Court" as I had discovered within various Affidavits sworn by the solicitor George LeBlanc “ Mayor of Moncton” and his group of conspirators, such as Court Document Process Server David A. Daneliuk, a.k.a. Dave Daneliuk and the multitude of “Hearsay” affidavits  provided by obscure RBC employees, and the like; furthermore, all of these subject affidavits, when examined, were later required to be retracted and altered to your satisfaction, that you may assist in the cover up of a "Vacant Possession Syndicate" operated by yours truly the solicitor “ Mayor of Moncton”.  

Even as I write this letter Mr. Justice Zoël R. Dionne , my mind reflects upon your shameless indiscretions to blatantly utter words 'ON THE RECORD'  and I quote you Mr. Justice Zoël R. Dionne: 
 “although no one has mentioned it the solicitor acting for the Plaintiffs is none other than George H. LeBlanc Mayor of Moncton."

Incredible ! 
This is not a finding in fact!

Despite the absence of Material Facts, further, that there had never been at any time during the Court hearings words introducing George LeBlanc as Moncton City Mayor, moreover, and no mention is found within the writings of the Court Filed submissions. whereas, no substantive material evidence had been Court filed establishing George LeBlanc as Mayor of Moncton, how then could you Mr. Justice Zoël R. Dionne say out loud and onto to the Court RECORD as you Mr. Justice Zoël R. Dionne can be heard blurting out the words: “although no one has mentioned it the solicitor acting for the Plaintiffs is none other than George H. LeBlanc Mayor of Moncton." 

Dear Mr. Justice Zoël R. Dionne you refused my Motion to transfer the Court File to a proper jurisdiction and thereby willingly participated in the attrition efforts of and by your friend Solicitor George H. LeBlanc, who is George H. LeBlanc Mayor of Moncton

Dear  Mr. Justice Zoël R. Dionne you have evidently positioned yourself to array on the side of or against any party, or cause. which will reveal your friend George H. LeBlanc as the leader of a nest of vipers, a reasonably criminal syndicate, operated by the solicitor George H. LeBlanc, who you Mr. Justice Zoël R. Dionne unfortunately were so indiscreet as to have pointed out is the “Mayor of Moncton”. 

Furthermore, I cannot appear before you, because as I have indicated herewithin, that I am unwell (being treated medically for depression and anxiety), consequences (to a large degree) of your actions thus far.

-         You have continuously revealed bias, moreover, in declaring that George H. LeBlanc is the Mayor of Moncton, revealing that you were considering same, when deciding the implications of George H. LeBlanc as the Mayor of Moncton being accused of Fraud upon the Court. This poses the question, did you want to avoid being known as the Judge who recognized, that, the Mayor of Moncton to has committed Fraud upon the court. Evidently you did not.

-         Most conspicuously you had Justice Rideout act out a apparent mistake in scheduling to therefore appear in your stead on a matter you had been scheduled to preside over, furthermore a matter concerning these herein subject matters on as scheduled August 25, 2012.

-         A Motion as herein mentioned was scheduled August 25, 2012 requesting Orders inter alia for an Injunction, for that reason, stopping you Dionne from making a premature biased decision, on five Motions.

-         Conspicuously Justice Rideout was so indiscreet to “on the record declare” an affirmation of your whereabouts as being and  acknowledged that you however were at that moment, however, reasonably in your Court House Office, yet  Justice Rideout refused to and did not send for you, instead went along with the deception that there had somehow been a scheduling confusion beyond his control or comprehension, while at the same time contradicting himself on the record as being fully aware that you Justice Zoël R. Dionne are seized of the matter his Alice in Wonderland game that you intend to play with me is not going to work as I have fully documented the conspiracy which in this herein subject  matter resulted in an dilatory tactic to further damage control matters for your friend Solicitor George H. LeBlanc who is the Mayor of Moncton (as you so indiscreetly pointed out ‘on the record’) this game resulted in an adjournment of the matter (as scheduled August 25, 2012 requesting Orders inter alia for an Injunction), without a date, thereby taking away all vital or essential parts of my efforts to fully inform and or advise with substantive material evidence required for the Court,  before arriving at its expected decision. 

-         Other incident of your indiscretions involve the inappropriate allowance of a party to the cause who wishes to withdraw from an action, although the Rules of Court clearly state that if a party wishes to withdraw they must pay cost to that date, you did refuse to Order 501376 N.B. ltd, a body corporate to pay any costs, whatsoever and grated them leave to withdraw from the Action, an action which incidentally, was initially filed, to substantially benefit 501376 N.B. ltd, a body corporate. 

NOTICE

I claim that you Justice Zoël  R. Dionne are in conflict of interest, for that matter, have sufficiently demonstrated "reasonable apprehension of bias" and are not competent to preside over any matters concerning me Andre Murray, as a party in opposition with your friend Solicitor George H. LeBlanc (as you pointed out) Mayor of Moncton.

I have consequently suffered great physiological harm and or damages, as a result of your unbalanced decision making, which resulted in your issuing Court Orders inconsistent with the circumstances, thereby, demonstrating subjective favoritism, which, for that reason has caused me emotional shock.   

Be advised I am consequently, currently under professional physiological care and have been prescribed by these same doctors a regular regime requiring that I orally consume medication to treat my nervous break down.

Needless to say ,I will not be attending your corrupt Court Room environment as I cannot expect, as I have never received to date, a fair hearing of any of my matters of which you have, to date, presided over. 
 

I therefore require that you adjourn this matter to a date at which time my doctors have determined that I have fully recovered from the psychological shock of being illegally evicted from my residential tenancy which any fair minded presiding Judge, is required to take Judicial Notice of the Residential Tenancy Act which is Notwithstanding all others in the Province of new Brunswick. 

Mr. Zoël  R. Dionne I recommend that you do the honorable thing and recuse yourself from this mater as I will not allow this matter of your transgressions against me to rest until your wrongdoings and your collaboration with your friend Solicitor George H. LeBlanc (as you pointed out) Mayor of Moncton, who is the leader of a nest of vipers, a criminal vacant possession - relocation syndicate operated by the solicitor George H. LeBlanc on behalf of allegedly the Royal Bank of Canada, has been entirely revealed.

Govern yourself accordingly. 

Sincerely without malice, aforethought, ill will, vexation, or frivolity.

  ________________

André Murray

Fredericton New Brunswick 

andremurraynow@gmail.com



 Link to scan of letter:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/114658285/November-6-2012-Letter-to-Clerk-of-the-Court-Moncton-Trial-Division#page=1 

Principles of Tort Law

 

The following is from Walsh v. Nicholls and CGU Insurance Company of Canada, 2004 NBCA 59 (CanLII) at the following link:

<http://canlii.ca/t/1hjwc>

Principles of Tort Law

[36]                                               The manifold objectives of tort law are summarized in Vivienne Harpwood, Principles of Tort Law, 4^th ed. (London: Cavendish Publishing Ltd., 2000) at pp. 13-15:

•        Compensation

      The most obvious objective of tort is to provide a channel for compensating victims of injury and loss. Tort is the means whereby issues of liability can be decided and compensation assessed and awarded.

•        Protection of interests

      The law of tort protects a person's interests in land and other property, in his or her reputation, and in his or her bodily integrity. Various torts have been developed for these purposes. For example, the tort of nuisance protects a person's use or enjoyment of land, the tort of defamation protects his or her reputation, and the tort of negligence protects the breaches of more general duties owed to that person.

•        Deterrence

      It has been suggested that the rules of tort have a deterrent effect, encouraging people to take fewer risks and to conduct their activities more carefully, mindful of their possible effects on other people and their property. This effect is reflected in the greater awareness of the need for risk management by manufacturers, employers, health providers and others which is encouraged by insurance companies. The deterrent effect of tort is less obvious in relation to motoring though the incentives to be more careful are present in the insurance premium rating system.

•        Retribution

      An element of retribution may be present in the tort system. People who have been harmed are sometimes anxious to have a day in court in order to see the perpetrator of their suffering squirming under cross-examination. This is probably a more important factor in libel actions and intentional torts than in personal injury claims which are paid for by insurance companies. In any event, most cases are settled out of court and the only satisfaction to the claimant lies in the knowledge that the defendant will have been caused considerable inconvenience and expense. The claimant also risks financial loss if the case is decided against him or her and this is a factor to be weighed in the balance when retribution is sought.

•        Vindication

      Tort provides the means whereby a person who regards him or herself as innocent in a dispute can be vindicated by being declared publicly to be 'in the right' by a court. However, again, it must be noted that many cases never actually come before a court and the opportunity for satisfaction does not arise.

•        Loss distribution

      Tort is frequently recognised, rather simplistically, as a vehicle for distributing losses suffered as a result of wrongful activities. In this context loss means the cost of compensating for harm suffered. This means redistribution of the cost from the claimant who has been injured to the defendant, or in most cases the defendant's insurance company. Ultimately, everyone paying insurance or buying goods at a higher price to cover insurance payments will bear the cost. The process is not easily undertaken and it involves considerable administrative expense which is reflected in the cost of the tort system itself. There are also hidden problems attached to the system, such as psychological difficulties for claimants in using lawyers and courts, and practical difficulties such as the funding of claims which may mean that many who deserve compensation never receive it. It has been suggested that there are other less expensive and more efficient means than tort for dealing with such loss distribution.

•        Punishment of wrongful conduct

      Although this is one of the main functions of criminal law, it may also play a small part in the law of tort, as there is a certain symbolic moral value in requiring the wrongdoer to pay the victim. However, this aspect has become less valuable with the introduction of insurance.

[37]                                               One of tort law’s primary objectives, beyond providing fair compensation, is to improve the quality of interaction in society by deterring sub-standard behavior. ...