Complaint screening decisions for complaints made to the Canadian Judicial Council are subject to a reasonableness standard of review, for all issues other than procedural fairness.

Complaint screening decisions for complaints made to the Canadian Judicial Council are subject to a reasonableness standard of review, for all issues other than procedural fairness.

Administrative law – Decisions reviewed – Canadian Judicial Council – Conflict of interest – Judicial review – Appeals – Procedural requirements and fairness – Standard of review – Reasonableness; Judges – Penalties.

Patel v. Canada (Attorney General), [2026] F.C.J. No. 342, Federal Court of Appeal, March 11, 2026, P.G. Pamel, K.A.S. Monaghan and S.E. Roussel JJ.A.

Dr. Patel made complaints against two judges of Saskatchewan to the Canadian Judicial Council (“CJC”) regarding appearances he had before them. He complained that, when he appeared before them, the two judges were in a conflict of interest, as they had been partners at the same law firm that represented one of the parties involved in the litigation, and that one of the judges actually undertook work for that party, in his view purportedly violating the CJC’s ethical principles for judges. The applicant complaints to the CJC were dismissed at the screening stage by the Executive Director of the CJC on the basis that they did not raise issues of judicial conduct but rather fell within the ambit of judicial decision-making and the exercise of judicial discretion, which are subject to appellate review and not of the nature reviewable by the CJC.

The applicant sought judicial review of the CJC decision at the Federal Court. His application for judicial review was dismissed in relation to both complaints.

On appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal, the Court was asked to consider whether the Federal Court’s application of the reasonableness standard of review was appropriate.

The applicant argued that the screening decisions of the Executive Director that effectively deprive claimants of a decision on the merits of their complaints should be reviewed on a standard of correctness. He challenged the level of deference shown by the Federal Court to the Executive Director’s determination of whether the decision complained of amounted to judicial decision-making.

The Federal Court of Appeal agreed with the approach taken by the Federal Court, finding the standard of review was reasonableness for all issues other than procedural fairness. The Court determined that Dr. Patel had failed to establish that the CJC’s decisions were unreasonable or that there had been a breach of his rights to procedural fairness. It was notable that there was another avenue available to Dr. Patel to address his concerns about the judges’ purported impartiality through the normal appeal process available in the appellate court. The Court reiterated that matters that can be appealed are not the proper subject of a judicial conduct complaint.

The Court did not accept Dr. Patel’s argument that the CJC has a duty to investigate all complaints and failure to do so amounts to a breach of procedural fairness. The Court observed the CJC’s mandate and procedures limit its obligations to investigate to situations where judicial conduct may threaten the integrity of the judicial function itself and where the harm alleged is not curable by the appeal process.

This case was digested by JoAnne G. Barnum of Harper Grey LLP.  If you would like to discuss this case further, please feel free to contact her directly at [email protected].