Bill C-9 would amend the Judges Act to strengthen the process for handling complaints against federally appointed judges, who are the judges of the Supreme Court of Canada, the federal courts, and the provincial and territorial superior trial courts and courts of appeal. The process also applies to associate judges of the Federal Court and the Tax Court of Canada.

Q 2 Why does the current process need reform?

The current process, which was created in 1971, has three main shortcomings:
- It can be lengthy and costly, particularly in cases of serious misconduct that could result in removal from the bench;
- It does not provide for the imposition of sanctions for misconduct not serious enough to warrant removal;
- Due to the need to hold public hearings for serious allegations of misconduct, which are both costly relative to the rest of the process and unpredictable, the process is challenging to fund through the regular budget cycle.

Q 3 How would the changes made by this Bill improve the process?

The process for making recommendations to the Minister of Justice on whether a judge should be removed from office would be streamlined.
In particular, judicial review in the federal courts would be replaced by a shorter, more efficient administrative appeal process, thereby streamlining the most important driver of process costs.
New procedures would allow for the imposition of sanctions for misconduct not serious enough to justify removal from office. These would include reprimands and mandatory courses of counselling or continuing education.
The new process would be subject to new financial controls aimed at ensuring better accountability for the process’ costs. These would require, among other things, that certain key process costs be reviewed every five years.
The new process would involve members of the general public on review panels, giving them a role in determining sanctions for misconduct not serious enough to warrant removal, and on full hearing panels, giving them a role in deciding whether to recommend a judge’s removal from the bench to the Minister of Justice.

Q 4 Would these reforms apply to cases currently under way?

Investigations and inquiries that have already commenced when the new process comes into force would continue under the old process.
However, this Bill would ensure that a judge whose removal is recommended by the Canadian Judicial Council under the old process would, with leave, be able to appeal directly to the Supreme Court of Canada. This would avoid lengthy judicial review proceedings regarding recommendations for removal made under the current process.

Q 5 How many complaints does the Council receive every year, and how many result in public inquiries?

The number of complaints received every year varies. Over the past 15 years, the Council has received an average of about 600 complaints per year. From April 2019 to March 2020, the Council received 648.
The Council has fully completed 8 inquiries, with a 9th currently underway. A number of inquiries ended before they were completed because the judge resigned.

Q 6 Does Bill C-9 contribute to the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act?

By strengthening and streamlining the process for handling complaints against federally-appointed judges, the Bill reflects principles of access to prompt decision-making processes and the principles of justice, democracy, respect for human rights, equality, non-discrimination, good governance and good faith that are also found in the UN Declaration (see articles 40 and 46). Though it is not directed specifically at Indigenous peoples or at implementing the UN Declaration, by improving the complaints process for all Canadians, this will include Indigenous persons who may seek to make a complaint.

Q 7 Was a Charter Statement issued for Bill C-9 in accordance with section 4.2 of the Department of Justice Act and, if so, what did it conclude?

Yes. The Charter Statement concluded that Bill C-9 contains measures that support the consistency of the Bill with the rights protected by the Charter.

Q 8 Why does Bill C-9 not contain a requirement that the process it sets out must operate in both official languages?

Including such a requirement in Bill C-9 would be redundant because the Official Languages Act already imposes such a requirement. By operation of subsection 3(2) and Part III of that Act (which deals with administration of justice), all federal tribunals who carry out adjudicative functions must operate in both official languages. This requirement would apply to the decision-making bodies of the judicial conduct process proposed by C-9, as is the case with many other federal administrative tribunals.
In the context of the judicial conduct process, this means (amongst other things) that proceedings will be held in the official language preferred by the judge who is the subject of the proceedings, and that the process’ decision-making bodies will make its decisions available in both official languages.

Q 9 Why does Bill C-9 refer to “prothonotaries” when these office holders are now called “associate judges”?

Bill C-9 was introduced in the House of Commons on December 16, 2021, when these office holders were called “prothonotaries”. The title change to “associate judge” was made through Budget Implementation Act, 2022, No. 1, introduced as Bill C-19 on April 28, 2022, and enacted on June 23, 2022.
Mindful of Bill C-9’s references to “prothonotaries”, Bill C-19 was drafted to include coordinating amendments, which ensure that these references are automatically updated to the right terminology in the event Bill C-9 receives Royal Assent.
In other words, it is not problematic that Bill C-9 includes references to “prothonotaries”; coordinating amendments in Budget Implementation Act, 2022, No. 1 ensure these references are accurate at each point in time, reflecting the latter legislation’s objective of changing the title of these office holders from “prothonotary” to “associate judge”.
Budget Implementation Act, 2022, No. 1 also created the office of Tax Court of Canada associate judge, and ensured that office holders are subject to the judicial conduct process as reformed by Bill C-9.

Who Can Make a Complaint?

Q 10 Who will be able to make a complaint against a federally appointed judge under the new process proposed by Bill C-9?

Like under the current process, anyone will be able to make a complaint.

Q 11 Will complainants get notified of the outcome of their complaints?

Yes. Complainants must be notified of the outcome of their complaints and have a right to receive reasons.
However, Bill C-9 does not establish universal rules regarding notification of complainants because of the wide variety of possible complainants. Some complaints are anonymous or made by the Council, others are made by members of the general public concerned by coverage of an incident of alleged misconduct in the media, and others are made by a complainant alleging wrongdoing by a judge against them personally. Some complaints include sensitive or confidential information. The circumstances of a particular complaint may entitle one or more complainants (for example, those to whom personal information relates) to more detail regarding decisions made than another complainant not already privy to that information. The principles of procedural fairness, which apply to all administrative proceedings, including the judicial conduct process, will determine the extent to which a complainant is owed information about how their complaint has been handled, and these principles evolve through jurisprudence and are context-dependent. Determining when and how complainants are to be notified and provided information about their complaint is therefore best left to policy instruments issued, and amendable from time to time, by the Council. Section 87 in Clause 12 of Bill C-9 requires the Council to issue such a policy.

Q 12 If a complainant is dissatisfied with how their complaint was handled, what recourse will they have?

A complainant dissatisfied with how their complaint was handled by the Council can apply to the Federal Court for judicial review. The Federal Court and Federal Court of Appeal have confirmed on multiple occasions that the principles of procedural fairness guarantee a complainant the right to be notified of the outcome of their complaint and to receive reasons.

Rosters

Q 13 Why does the Bill provide for the establishment of a roster of lay persons? Who will be on it?

Lay persons are members of the general public who are neither current nor former judges, lawyers or notaries.
The involvement of lay persons helps build public confidence in the judicial conduct process by bringing a diverse perspective to the evaluation of misconduct allegations. The Bill would require the Council to ensure, as far as possible, that those named to serve on the lay persons’ roster reflect the diversity of the Canadian population.
The Bill requires the Council to designate people from the lay persons’ roster to serve on review and full hearing panels (explained below) – to deal with complaints.
Requiring the roster to be public enhances the transparency of the process.
To ensure the independence of the process from the other branches of government, the Bill makes the Council responsible for selecting people for the lay person roster.
The Bill requires the Council to establish criteria for being selected for the roster and to make those criteria public so that those interested may apply. This also enhances the transparency of the process.

Q 14 Would there be more lay person involvement in the new process?

Yes. Under the current process, lay persons are only involved as members of review panels, which currently have a limited role.
Under the new process, the Council would be required to include lay persons on two key decision-making bodies of the new judicial conduct process – review and full hearing panels (explained below).

Q 15 Why is there a roster of judges who are not members of the Council? Who will be on it?

The Council consists of chief or associate chief justices, i.e. judges in a managerial role. Judges who are not Council members have no managerial role, and are known as puisne judges.
Puisne judges have a strong interest in a fair and effective judicial conduct process. Their involvement brings an important perspective on the day-to-day challenges of sitting judges.
To ensure a diversity of judicial perspectives, the Canadian Superior Courts Judges’ Association will recommend judges for inclusion in the roster, rather than the Council.
The Bill requires the Council to designate people from the roster of judges who are not Council members to serve on the various bodies established by the Bill – review, hearing and appeal panels (all explained below) – to deal with complaints.
The Council will need to make the roster public, thereby increasing the transparency of the process.

Q 16 There are rosters for selecting puisne judges and lay persons who will take part in the process as decision-makers. Why are there no rosters for lawyers and Council members who will take part as decision-makers?

Lawyers will only take part in the process as decision-makers on hearing panels, which will be infrequent compared to review panels. A roster of lawyers would therefore likely include people who may well never be called to serve. This significantly diminishes any benefits of establishing a roster of lawyers.
A roster of Council members would, for practical reasons, likely need to include all Council members. There are only 42 members of the Council. Further limits are introduced by the fact that Chief and Associate Chief Justices cannot take part in considering complaints against judges of their own court. Official languages and diversity considerations, added to the busy schedule of chief and associate chief justices, may render the pool of Council members available to consider a given complaint quite small.

Q 17 Why is there a majority of judges on the different panels at each stage of the process?

This gives effect to decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada suggesting that judicial conduct processes must be judge-led to guarantee judicial independence: see Re Therrien, 2001 SCC 35 at paragraph 57; Moreau-Bérubé v. New Brunswick, 2002 SCC 11 at paragraphs 47 and 60.
The proposed new process would, however, strengthen the participation of lay members, and continue involving members of the bar, helping to build public confidence in the judicial conduct process and enhancing the process’ transparency.

Screening of Complaints and Early Dismissal

Q 18 What does it mean that the Council will screen complaints? On what grounds?

A screening process is a process for determining whether a complaint falls outside the jurisdiction of the complaints body, or whether it constitutes an abuse of the complaints process. Every complaints process must necessarily screen out complaints that fall outside the jurisdiction of the complaints body and/or that constitute an abuse of process.
Examples of a complaint falling outside the jurisdiction of the judicial conduct process: (i) a complaint about a provincially-appointed judge (such complaints must be directed to the relevant provincial judicial council); (ii) a request to have the judge’s decision changed (the appropriate mechanism to address this is through an appeal of the decision).
Example of an abuse of the judicial conduct process: a complainant repeatedly makes the same complaint against the same judge despite the complaint having been thoroughly assessed and dealt with.

Q 19 Who will screen complaints made under the new judicial conduct process?

Currently, the Council may decide who fulfills this function. The Bill does not change that.
In the interest of greater clarity and transparency, the Bill proposes to explicitly state in the Judges Act that the Council may determine who screens complaints. The Council would need to designate as a “screening officer” an individual who meets the criteria specified by the Council.

Q 20 What happens to complaints that are not screened out?

The screening officer refers the complaint to a member of the Council designated to review the complaint. This “reviewing member” gives the judge who is the subject of the complaint an opportunity to make written submissions about the complaint.
The reviewing member can only dismiss a complaint on the ground that it should have been screened out, or that it is wholly without merit. Otherwise the complaint proceeds to be considered by a review panel.

Review Panels and Appeals from Review Panel Decisions

Q 21 What is a review panel and what will its role be?

Review panels review all complaints that may raise concerns about a judge’s conduct. They are composed of three members: one Council member; one judge who is not a Council member (puisne judge); and one lay person.
In considering the complaint, the review panel provides both the judge who is the subject of the complaint and the chief justice of the judge’s court the opportunity to provide written submissions.
If the review panel determines that the complaint is so serious that it might justify a judge’s removal from office, the complaint is referred to a full hearing panel for consideration.
For judicial misconduct not serious enough to justify removal, the review panel will be empowered to impose one or more sanctions that would be set out in the Act. This would enable the effective, fair and early resolution of cases of misconduct that do not require a full-scale public hearing.

Q 22 A review panel will have the power to impose certain sanctions for less serious misconduct. Why this list of sanctions? Why not suspension without pay?

The sanctions set out by the Bill have at their root, the objective of sustaining and contributing to public respect and confidence in the judiciary, which is necessary to ensure public confidence in the justice system and the rule of law.
The Supreme Court of Canada has stated that judges are held to a very high standard when it comes to their conduct both in and out of court (see Re Therrien, 2001 SCC 35 at paragraphs 110-111).
The sanctions the Bill proposes for misconduct not justifying removal are designed to address the misconduct while at the same time being consistent with a judge remaining in office and resuming judicial duties with the confidence of the public.
Misconduct capable of attracting harsher sanctions available in some workplaces, like suspension from duties or suspension of pay, will likely be so serious that removal should be considered. In addition, imposing such sanctions may be incompatible with certain requirements of judicial independence.

Q 23 Why do certain sanctions require the judge’s consent?

Only sanctions that might be considered to be outside of those listed in Clause 12 – section 102 would require the judge’s consent.
This feature of the current process was retained to ensure that a review panel has a measure of freedom to consider sanctions outside of those listed if it considers it appropriate to do so to fully remedy the instance of misconduct in a way that restores public confidence in the judge.

Q 24 Why does a judge dissatisfied with a review panel’s decision have the option of requesting a fresh hearing before a reduced hearing panel?

The option of a hearing will help avoid claims of procedural unfairness, which can lead to judicial review. Such claims could arise because review panels will proceed in writing only, with no hearings. Yet, on occasion, depending on the facts giving rise to the complaint, procedural fairness may entitle a judge to a hearing.

Q 25 Why does a reduced hearing panel include a lawyer instead of a lay person?

Reduced hearing panels exist to provide judges dissatisfied with a review panel’s finding of misconduct not serious enough to warrant removal, with a forum in which to appeal the review panel’s decision. Reduced hearing panels do not have jurisdiction in cases where the review panel determines a matter is serious enough to warrant removal; in such cases, the matter goes before a full hearing panel. In light of this, reduced hearing panels will generally deal with less serious matters, but serve an important function in ensuring the judge receives appropriate procedural fairness.
In an effort to streamline the process in terms of both time and cost, the reduced hearing panels consists of three rather than five members, as is the case with a full hearing panel. To give effect to decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada suggesting that judicial conduct processes must be judge-led to guarantee judicial independence, two of the three members of reduced hearing panels are judges: one Council member and one judge who is not a Council member (puisne judge). Given that an important focus of the reduced hearing panel will be to ensure that the judge receives appropriate procedural fairness, legal expertise is a paramount criterion for members. As such, the third members is a lawyer of at least 10 years’ standing at the bar of any province.
Note that if a reduced hearing panel disagrees with the review panel and considers that the matter before it may be so serious that removal may be warranted, it must cease its proceedings and send the matter on to a full hearing panel. This full hearing panel, which includes a lay member, would then determine the appropriate remedy in the circumstances.

Q 26 What kinds of sanctions for misconduct can reduced hearing panels impose?

The same as those that a review panel can impose. Like a review panel, a reduced hearing panel cannot recommend the judge’s removal. If a reduced hearing panel considers that the matter before it may be so serious that removal may be warranted, it must cease its proceedings and send the matter on to a full hearing panel.

Q 27 Can a decision of a reduced hearing panel be appealed?

Yes. The decision of a reduced hearing panel can be appealed to an appeal panel, and from there to the Supreme Court of Canada with leave of the Court.

Presenting Counsel

Q 28 What is a presenting counsel and what role do they play in the process?

A presenting counsel is an experienced lawyer (with at least 10 years of membership at the bar) selected by a member of the Council to act like a prosecutor before a hearing panel, presenting the case against the judge. The presenting counsel takes their instructions from the Council member who selected them.

Q 29 When is a presenting counsel selected?

Only once a complaint reaches a hearing panel, either full or reduced. The presenting counsel who presents the case against the judge before a hearing panel would be expected to also argue any appeals.

Q 30 How will presenting counsel be selected?

A Council member will be tasked with selecting a presenting counsel. The Council member will look to retain a lawyer who is highly experienced, has a strong professional reputation, and has in-depth knowledge of the relevant areas of law.

Full Hearing Panels

Q 31 What does a full hearing panel do and how is it different from a reduced hearing panel?

While a reduced hearing panel has only 3 members (a Council member, a judge who is not a Council member and a lawyer), a full hearing panel has 5 members (2 Council members, 1 judge who is not a Council member, 1 lawyer and 1 lay member).
A full hearing panel is only constituted if a review panel or a reduced hearing panel concludes that a complaint might be serious enough to warrant removal. If that happens, the proceedings of the review panel or reduced hearing panel end immediately, and the complaint is transferred to a full hearing panel.
Only full hearing panels can hold public hearings to determine if a complaint is so serious that removal is justified. It is the full hearing panel who issues a report to the Minister of Justice with a recommendation on whether the judge should be removed from office.

Q 32 If a full hearing panel finds that removal is not justified, can it still find that the judge has committed misconduct and impose a sanction?

Yes. A full hearing panel will be able to impose the same range of sanctions as review panels for any misconduct that does not justify removal from office.

Q 33 Can the decision of a full hearing panel be appealed?

Yes. The decision of a full hearing panel can be appealed to an appeal panel, and from there to the Supreme Court of Canada with leave of the Court.

Q 34 If full hearing panels are in charge of issuing reports to the Minister with recommendations on removal, and their decisions can be appealed, do they have to wait for any appeals to be completed to issue a report to the Minister?

Yes. A full hearing panel will only issue its report to the Minister once appeals have been completed or the deadline for appealing has passed. The panel’s report and recommendation on removal will have to be consistent with any decisions on appeal.

Appeals

Q 35 What is an appeal panel?

Appeal panels will be made up of 5 judges, 3 Council members and 2 puisne judges from the judge’s roster.
Decisions of hearing panels, either full or reduced, can be appealed by either the judge or the presenting counsel to an appeal panel.
The appeal panel will constitute the final stage of the Council’s judicial conduct process, though not necessarily the final level of appeal.

Q 36 Can an appeal panel’s decision be appealed?

Yes. An appeal panel’s decision can be appealed directly to the Supreme Court of Canada, but only with leave of the Court.
Saying that leave to appeal is required is another way of saying that the Court’s permission is needed before an appeal can be launched. In the case of the Supreme Court, leave is requested by filing short written submissions (in accordance with the Supreme Court Act) explaining why the Court should hear the case.

Q 37 What about judicial reviews?

The appeals process (i.e. appeals to appeal panels and from there to the Supreme Court, with leave) will replace judicial review through the federal courts.

Q 38 Why is judicial review through the federal courts being replaced by an appeals process?

Judicial review is primarily meant to ensure the fairness of administrative decision-making processes. Since the judicial conduct process is judge- led at each step, and culminates with an appeal panel made up of five judges whose decision is appealable with leave to the Supreme Court, judicial review is unnecessary to ensure process fairness.
The appeals process proposed by Bill C-9 will also be faster than judicial review through as many as three levels of court, a key consideration given the importance of efficiently settling allegations of misconduct against federally appointed judges.

Q 39 On December 19, 2022, the Canadian Judicial Council recommended the removal of a judge, and the judge is challenging the recommendation by way of judicial review in Federal Court. Will the Minister have to wait for the judicial review process to end before deciding whether to accept the recommendation?

The Minister will need to await the outcome of any legal challenge to the recommendation before deciding whether to accept it.
However, Bill C-9 contains a clause allowing a judge whose removal was recommended under the current process to apply for leave to appeal the recommendation directly to the Supreme Court of Canada. As soon as C-9 comes into force, the judge will be able to expedite his legal challenge by applying for leave to appeal directly to the Supreme Court.

Q 40 Does replacing judicial review by an appeals process have the effect of insulating the Canadian Judicial Council from review by the courts?

No. The end-result of the Canadian Judicial Council’s process, the decision of an appeal panel, will be appealable, with leave, to the Supreme Court of Canada. The Supreme Court itself will provide court oversight of the process.

Q 41 Does the requirement to obtain leave to appeal from the Supreme Court of Canada mean that the Court is less able to provide court oversight of the Canadian Judicial Council’s process?

No. The requirement to obtain leave simply means that the Supreme Court of Canada has the power to decide which cases it will hear.
While the Court usually requires applicants for leave to show that their case raises questions of national importance, this is a requirement imposed by the Court in light of the fact that appeals usually reach the Court through subsection 40(1) of the Supreme Court Act, which gives the Court jurisdiction to grant leave to appeal from the decisions of other courts and mentions in particular cases of “public importance”. The wording of subsection 40(1) still leaves the Court with the freedom to apply a different standard if it considers it appropriate to do so in the circumstances. However, in the case of the process set out in Bill C-9, appeals will be from the decisions of appeal panels, not courts, and will reach the Court via section 41 of the Supreme Court Act, which expressly states: “Notwithstanding anything in this Act, the Court has jurisdiction as provided in any other Act conferring jurisdiction.” The Supreme Court will need to determine what standard to apply to decide whether to grant leave in the context of this process.
It is worth noting that leave is also required to obtain court review of certain administrative decisions. For example, leave of the Federal Court is required to obtain court review of most administrative decisions made under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (see section 72 of the Act).

Q 42 Will the Canadian Judicial Council be the only federal administrative decision-maker reviewable directly by the Supreme Court of Canada? If so, why not make it reviewable by the Federal Court or Federal Court of Appeal like other federal administrative decision-makers?

If Bill C-9 comes into force as introduced, the Canadian Judicial Council would become the only federal administrative decision-maker reviewable directly by the Supreme Court of Canada.
This is appropriate because it reflects the unique structure of the Canadian Judicial Council’s process and composition of its decision-making bodies. Judges, including judges who are not Council members, will take part at every stage of the process from review panels onward, and appeal panels composed of five judges, including two who are not Council members, will be the final decision making body in the Council’s process. Appeal panels will effectively play a role equivalent to that played by intermediate appellate courts, like the Federal Court of Appeal, in the ordinary appeals process. Making their decisions directly reviewable by the Supreme Court of Canada ensures court oversight of the Council’s process in a way that makes the process both more efficient and cost-effective.

Report to Minister of Justice with Recommendation on Removal

Q 43 When will a report with a recommendation on whether the judge should be removed from office be made to the Minister of Justice, and by whom?

The full hearing panel who held the public hearings will make the report to the Minister of Justice, but only after all appeal opportunities have been exhausted, or the deadline for appealing has passed.
The report and recommendation will have to be consistent with the final decision regarding the judge’s case, which may be the decision of the full hearing panel, the appeal panel, or the Supreme Court of Canada.

Q 44 Will the report be public?

Yes. A report will be public, and it may only be redacted to protect confidential or sensitive information, such as the name of a victim of a crime, the name of a minor, or information relating to national security.

Q 45 Would the Minister of Justice be required to respond to the report?

Yes. The Minister would be required to respond publicly.

Q 46 Why is there no deadline for the Minister of Justice’s public response?

The complexity of judicial conduct matters vary greatly. Some may require more time to consider how to craft a response and some less, making an appropriate deadline difficult to determine.
Given the gravity of misconduct allegations against a judge serious enough to culminate in a recommendation on removal, the Minister will necessarily need to respond as soon as reasonably possible.

Q 47 If the Council’s process ends with a recommendation on the judge’s removal made to the Minister of Justice, how is a judge actually removed from office?

The Minister of Justice must decide, based on the report, whether the question of the judge’s removal from office should be put to a vote in the Houses of Parliament.
Subsection 99(1) of the Constitution Act, 1867 states that it is the Governor General who ultimately removes the judge, but that they can only do so “on address” of the Senate and House of Commons. In this context, “on address” signifies “at the request of” and means that both Houses of Parliament must vote in favour of the judge’s removal.

Q 48 Has a federally appointed judge ever been removed from office?

No. The Council has recommended removal from office on 5 occasions. In 4 of these cases, the judge resigned before the parliamentary removal procedure could be initiated. The fifth case is still underway, with the judge challenging the recommendation for removal through the courts.

Other Governor in Council Appointees

Q 49 Why is the new process being made applicable to other Governor in Council appointees?

This simply reflects the status quo, currently set out in section 69 of the Judges Act.
The new judicial conduct process, like the current one, could be used to decide whether other Governor in Council appointees (i.e. appointees other than judges or associate judges) who are appointed to serve during good behaviour should continue in office.
It is important to note that: (i) unlike for judges, the use of the judicial conduct process for this purpose is entirely optional, and is at the discretion of the Minister of Justice; and (ii) this process does not replace other existing mechanisms for investigating or removing office holders. For example, it does not affect the power of parliamentarians to inquire into the conduct of Officers of Parliament, or their exclusive right conferred by statute to remove them from office.

Q 50 To which Governor in Council appointees could this potentially apply?

To many of them, including the members of most federal administrative tribunals and arm’s length decision-makers.

Q 51 Has the judicial conduct process ever been used to determine whether to remove a Governor in Council appointee?

No. The process has never been used for this purpose.

Process Funding

Q 52 Why does a judge get a lawyer paid from the public purse for the purposes of judicial conduct proceedings?

Jurisprudence indicates that the security of tenure component of judicial independence requires that a judge have access to paid counsel to defend against allegations that may affect their tenure (see Bourbonnais v. Canada, 2006 FCA 62).

Q 53 How will the process be funded?

Process costs related to the processing and initial review of complaints, which are relatively stable from year to year, will be funded through the ordinary budget cycle.
Costs closely related to public hearings, which are high relative to other process costs and completely unpredictable from year to year, will be paid directly from the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

Q 54 What does it mean that certain process costs will be paid directly from the Consolidated Revenue Fund?

It means that the funds necessary to pay these costs will not need to be approved via the regular budget cycle. They will be payable as soon as they are incurred so long as they comply with regulations and guidelines enacted under Clause 12 – sections 144 and 145.
Payment of costs related to the judiciary directly from the Consolidated Revenue Fund is consistent with the rest of the Judges Act (see for example section 53).

Q 55 Will anything ensure that costs paid directly from the Consolidated Revenue Fund comply with safeguards meant to ensure the proper expenditure of public funds?

Yes. To ensure appropriate financial controls, periodic reviews of judicial conduct process costs paid from the Consolidated Revenue Fund will be conducted every 5 years, with the results made public.
A five-year period will provide sufficient data regarding the costs of the process, including for the more complex cases that take longer to resolve, to assess whether any adjustments in regulations or guidelines governing the payment of costs need to be made.

Date modified:: 2023-07-21