Ms. Jeannie Thomas
Executive Director
Canadian Judicial Council
112 Kent Street
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0W8

Dear Ms. Thomas:

Thank you for providing the current Canadian Judicial Council annual report and, as requested in your July 2003 notice, please find our up-dated mailing information enclosed.

In review of the CJC annual report we note that 'table 2' illustrates that there have been 1,697 complaints from 1992 to 2002. There is, however, absolutely no indication whether one or two judges have prompted 1600 complaints or whether the complaints are almost evenly distributed among 1500 judges. We would be grateful if you would provide us with the names of the judges who have been the subject of the complaints. We, at the Canadian Justice Review Board, take the position that Canadians have a right
to know which judges attach to which alleged offences, especially if there is a pattern. The courts were created to serve the Canadian public and therefore it is in the public interest, and within the spirit of public service, for you to provide the requested information. To be perfectly candid, the public's perception of the CJC is not enhanced by the paucity of information in the annual report. For example, the CJC investigation of convicted drug money launderer Justice Robert Flahiff is practically conveyed as a non-event (see bullet at p.22). The fact that the CJC was unable to reach any conclusion after Robert Flahiff stripped it of jurisdiction by resigning is, in our view, the type of public outrage that causes disillusionment and disgust and raises the suspicion that other
"Robert Flahiffs" may continue to lurk undetected within the system.

Significantly, the CJC annual report indicates that allegations of bias and cover-up have been raised against the CJC itself. Moreover, the CJC states that, in addition, complaints fall into the broad but intriguing categories of gender bias, conflict of interest, racial bias, delays in rendering judgement, inappropriate language, and complaints brought by the provincial attorney generals. Our Board is troubled that this list is obviously long on potential but short on specifics.

The CJC has acknowledged and accepted the Concise Oxford Dictionary definition of "accountability" as meaning "required or expected to justify actions or decisions" and therefore we submit that Canadians would be only to happy to have the CJC actions and decisions justified to them. The need for proper public disclosure and accountability is highlighted in your report by the remarks of former Chief Justice Antonio Lamer. He points out that: "…inevitably, since judges are human beings, judges will sometimes fall short of what is expected or required of them. Whatever reason for a judges' conduct there is no question that public scrutiny of that conduct is an increasing measure of confidence in the impartiality and effectiveness of the judiciary. What is important is that the institution of the judiciary is not seen as supporting, condoning, or attempting to hide such conduct from public view". This statement stands in sharp contrast to the seemingly hypocritical position taken by the CJC in exempting itself from the Access to Information Act, and in thereby denying Canadians their otherwise legal right to stay informed, and hold to account, a publicly funded organization such as yours.

Yours truly,

Robert I. Martin
Chairman

www.canadianjusticereviewboard.ca