Federal Court of Appeal Affirms Dismissal of Judicial Review Challenging a CJC Screening Decision

In Masjoody v. Canada (Attorney General), 2025 FCA 200, the Federal Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal brought by Dr. Masood Masjoody, upholding the Federal Court’s refusal to judicially review a decision of the Canadian Judicial Council (CJC). The case offers a concise but instructive reaffirmation of the limited scope of judicial oversight over the CJC’s initial screening of complaints against judges, the application of evidentiary rules in judicial review proceedings, and the high threshold for establishing procedural unfairness or bias in Federal Court proceedings.

Administrative law – Decisions reviewed – Canadian Judicial Council – Judicial review – Appeals – Procedural requirements and fairness – Natural justice – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter.

Masjoody v. Canada (Attorney General), [2025] F.C.J. No. 1863, Federal Court of Appeal, November 5, 2025, D.W. Stratas, K.A.S. Monaghan and S.E. Roussel JJ.A.

Dr. Masjoody filed a complaint with the Canadian Judicial Council alleging misconduct by three justices of the British Columbia Court of Appeal. While the judgment does not detail the substance of the allegations, the CJC, at the screening stage, dismissed the complaint on the grounds that it was “trivial, vexatious, made for an improper purpose and manifestly without substance.”

Unhappy with the dismissal, Masjoody sought judicial review in the Federal Court. Before considering the merits, the Federal Court struck several paragraphs and exhibits from his affidavit, finding them inadmissible under Rule 81 of the Federal Courts Rules, and also chose to disregard certain paragraphs from his memorandum of fact and law, describing them as improper, unsupported by evidence, and frivolous. The Federal Court concluded that the CJC decision was reasonable and that its process was procedurally fair, ultimately dismissing the application and awarding Tariff costs to the Attorney General.

Masjoody then appealed the decision of the Federal Court. On appeal, Masjoody raised a number of challenges. The Court of Appeal distilled them into five questions:

1.         Whether the Federal Court erred in striking portions of his affidavits and disregarding portions of his written submissions.

2.         Whether the CJC’s screening decision was unreasonable.

3.         Whether the CJC’s process was procedurally unfair.

4.         Whether the Federal Court itself breached procedural fairness or displayed bias against him.

5.         Whether the Federal Court erred in awarding what he characterized as punitive costs.

After reviewing the record and submissions, the Court found that the answer to each question was no.

ISSUE 1: AFFIDAVITS AND WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

The Court of Appeal held that the Federal Court made no reversible error in striking inadmissible affidavit material. It relied on Rule 81, which governs the content of affidavits in applications for judicial review, and the precedent in Tsleil-Waututh Nation v. Canada (Attorney General), 2017 FCA 128, endorsing strict limits on new evidence in such proceedings. Portions of the appellant’s memorandum were properly disregarded: submissions unsupported by evidence, or asserting improper argument or allegations, are not entitled to weight.

The Court’s brief treatment of this issue underscores the discretion afforded to the Federal Court to control its process and to enforce evidentiary limits designed to keep judicial review within its proper scope.

ISSUE 2: REASONABLENESS OF THE CJC DECISION

On the core issue—the reasonableness of the CJC’s decision—the Court performed its own analysis, as required on appeal from a judicial review judgment. The Court affirmed that the CJC’s dismissal of the complaint at the screening stage was reasonable.

A key point the Court added was that the CJC is not required to separately address every piece of evidence submitted. Decision-makers are presumed to have reviewed all material before them unless the record indicates otherwise. The CJC’s broad conclusion—that the complaint was trivial, vexatious, made for an improper purpose, and manifestly without substance—fell comfortably within its statutory authority and screening mandate.

ISSUE 3: PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS BEFORE THE CJC

The Court also upheld the CJC’s process as procedurally fair. Drawing on Canadian Pacific Railway Co. v. Canada (Attorney General), 2018 FCA 69, the Court reiterated that procedural fairness is flexible and contextual: the question is whether the process was fair “having regard to all the circumstances.” At the screening stage, the CJC’s obligations are modest. The appellant had an opportunity to present his materials; the CJC reviewed them; and no further procedural entitlements—such as a hearing, oral submissions, or a point-by-point evidentiary analysis—were required.

ISSUE 4: ALLEGATIONS OF BIAS AND PROCEDURAL UNFAIRNESS IN THE FEDERAL COURT

Masjoody also argued that the Federal Court showed bias or denied him a fair opportunity to present his case. The Court of Appeal acknowledged that the hearing transcript might suggest the Federal Court was “unduly impatient,” but it found no breach of fairness. The Federal Court had reviewed the record, permitted the appellant to make submissions, and reasonably enforced its rulings regarding inadmissible evidence, and concluded that Masjoody’s submissions were unpersuasive.

Importantly, the Court noted that any alleged breach would, in any event, be cured on appeal, because the Court of Appeal undertook its own fresh assessment of the CJC’s decision and process. The Court cited Haynes v. Canada (Attorney General), 2023 FCA 158 and related authorities, confirming that appellate review can remedy errors of fairness at first instance in judicial review proceedings.

ISSUE 5: AWARD OF COSTS

The Court rejected the appellant’s argument that the Federal Court’s costs award was punitive. It confirmed the lower court simply applied the default rule under Rule 407 of the Federal Courts Rules.

At the appellate level, the Court awarded lump-sum costs of $4,000 to the respondent, noting that the appellant had repeatedly advanced bald and unsubstantiated allegations of dishonesty and bad faith across all stages of the proceedings, conduct the Court characterized as vexatious.

The appeal was dismissed in its entirety, with a lump-sum costs award against the appellant.

CONCLUSION

The Court of Appeal’s brief but pointed reasons reaffirm the limited scope of judicial oversight over CJC screening decisions: courts will not interfere where a complaint clearly meets the threshold for dismissal under the CJC’s mandate. The decision also underscores that litigants must comply with evidentiary rules in judicial review proceedings, and that unsupported or inflammatory allegations will not be entertained. Finally, the judgment illustrates the high bar for establishing procedural unfairness or bias in Federal Court—and further, that the appellate process itself can remedy any minor defects in fairness below.

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