New process for complaints against judges and adjudicators

Summary#

Bill 31, the Procedures Respecting Complaints Against Provincial Court Judges and Adjudicators Act, would create a new law and replace complaint provisions in the Provincial Court Act, the Small Claims Act and the Judicature Act. Its stated goal is to set out how complaints about provincial court judges and adjudicators are handled. The supplied text is the first-reading version: it is not law, and no amended version was provided.

  • It would establish a complaints committee, made up of judges, adjudicators, Law Society members and six public members, to oversee the complaint process.
  • Anyone could submit a signed complaint about misconduct, neglect of duty, or inability or incapacity to perform the job. The Registrar could dismiss complaints on specified grounds or send them for review.
  • A judge could review a complaint first; a review panel could then dismiss it or find misconduct, neglect or incapacity and impose non-monetary measures.
  • An inquiry panel could hold a hearing and impose further measures, including suspension without pay for up to 90 days. If it recommends revoking an appointment, the Lieutenant-Governor in Council would have to revoke it.
  • The bill would also allow certain senior judges or adjudicators to start a review without a complaint, and allow them to restrict duties, transfer or suspend the subject while a matter is pending.

What it means for you#

  • People making complaints: You would need to sign a complaint and provide your contact details, the subject’s name, when and where the events occurred, and as much detail as possible. The bill sets review deadlines, but allows them to be extended.
  • Provincial court judges and adjudicators: A complaint could lead to a written review, a review panel, or an inquiry hearing. While a matter is pending, the relevant senior judge or adjudicator may restrict duties, transfer or suspend the person.
  • People involved in an inquiry hearing: The hearing would generally be public. The panel could close all or part of it, or use initials for a complainant or witness, if it finds compelling public-interest reasons.
  • The public: The Registrar would report complaint numbers and actions to the Minister each year. The bill does not require that report to be made public.
  • Current complaint rules: The bill would repeal specified existing provisions and regulations. The parent Acts are not supplied, so I could not verify how the proposed process differs from the current rules in practice.

Money#

The bill requires some public administration and allows some public payments, but no cost estimate is in the available material.

  • The six public committee members would receive remuneration and expenses set by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council.
  • A review panel could hire someone to investigate a complaint. The bill does not set a budget or staffing level.
  • If an inquiry panel dismisses a complaint, it could order reimbursement of costs incurred by the judge or adjudicator; any ordered reimbursement would come from the Consolidated Fund.
  • A judge or adjudicator could be suspended without pay for up to 90 days.

What is unclear#

  • “Misconduct,” “neglect of duty,” and “inability or incapacity” are not defined in the bill.
  • The bill gives no detailed rules for how the Registrar, review panels or inquiry panels assess evidence or decide cases. Inquiry panels may accept relevant evidence even if trial rules would not allow it.
  • The bill does not set out confidentiality rules for the earlier stages of a complaint, or require public release of the annual report.
  • It is unclear how the new process would interact with any other complaint or oversight processes.
  • The supplied material does not include the existing Acts’ text or any amendment versions, so the full change from current law cannot be checked.

Case for#

  • The bill appears intended to create a clear, staged process for complaints, with deadlines and written reasons at several stages.
  • A possible argument for the committee’s mixed membership is that judges, adjudicators, lawyers and public members would all have a role.
  • The process could address complaints through measures short of removal, such as a warning, reprimand, apology, counselling or training.
  • A hearing could provide a fuller review for serious matters, while allowing a panel to dismiss a complaint earlier.

Case against#

  • One concern is that key grounds for complaints are undefined, leaving important decisions to the people applying the Act.
  • The bill gives senior officials power to restrict duties, transfer or suspend a judge or adjudicator before a final decision; it does not set out detailed limits or review procedures for those interim actions.
  • The inquiry panel’s decision could not be appealed, although a person could seek judicial review in the Court of Appeal within 30 days.
  • If an inquiry panel recommends revocation, the Lieutenant-Governor in Council must revoke the appointment. The bill does not provide a separate choice at that stage.