Early dismissal of applicant’s complaints against three Ontario judges upheld on judicial review

Early dismissal of applicant’s complaints against three Ontario judges upheld on judicial review.

Administrative law – Decisions reviewed – Canadian Judicial Council – Judicial review – Procedural requirements and fairness – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness

McIntosh v. Canada (Attorney General), [2024] F.C.J. No. 1747, Federal Court, September 11, 2024, C. Pallotta J.

The applicant sought judicial review with the Federal Court of the Canadian Judicial Council’s (CJC) decisions dismissing his complaints against three Ontario Superior Court judges. His complaints – which arose out of his allegations against a judge who had case management conduct of his family law proceedings and who had referred to him as a “dangerous individual” in a case note – had been dismissed by the CJC in the early screening process on the basis that his allegations did not raise issues of judicial conduct and/or they were manifestly without merit and vexatious. He had been granted a reconsideration of one of those decisions, and on reconsideration, the original decision was effectively adopted and added to. The applicant argued that the CJC’s review was procedurally unfair because, in part, his supplementary submissions were not considered, and the decisions demonstrate bias. He also argued the decisions were unreasonable.

The Court noted that the original complaint decision regarding one of the judges that had been reconsidered was not to be reviewed; rather, only the reconsideration was properly under review. The Court concluded that the CJC owed the applicant a duty of fairness that fell at the lower end of the spectrum, and that he had not established a breach of procedural fairness. With respect to the bias argument, the Court noted that “Allegations of bias cannot rest on suspicion, conjecture, insinuations, or impressions of an applicant or his counsel, and must be supported by material evidence demonstrating conduct that derogates from the standard.”

The Court further found that the CJC’s decisions dismissing his complaints at the screening stage were not unreasonable. The CJC’s review of complaints against judges “must balance judicial independence and judicial integrity. A disciplinary process must only be launched when the conduct of an individual judge ‘has threatened the integrity of the judiciary as a whole’ and when ‘the harm alleged is not curable by the appeal process.’” The application for judicial review was dismissed.

This case was digested by Kara L. Hill of Harper Grey LLP and first published in the LexisNexis® Harper Grey Administrative Law Netletter and the Harper Grey Administrative Law Newsletter.  If you would like to discuss this case further, please feel free to contact her directly at [email protected].