A Toronto law firm is challenging the system used to investigate misconduct allegations against federally appointed judges, arguing the Canadian Judicial Council protects “abusive outliers” through a process that is secretive, ineffective and fundamentally unfair.

The constitutional challenge was launched by Breana Vandebeek, a partner at Gorham Vandebeek LLP, after complaints were filed against three judges of the New Brunswick Court of King’s Bench: Justice Frederick Ferguson, Justice Darrell Stephenson and Justice Thomas Christie.

The allegations have not been tested in court, according to reporting from The Globe and Mail.

According to the application filed in Ontario Superior Court, some judges allegedly harass litigants and lawyers, unnecessarily complicate proceedings and contribute to miscarriages of justice while facing little meaningful accountability.

Go Ad Free

“Once on the bench, the outlier faces little accountability, in part because the disciplinary process under the Canadian Judicial Council is ineffective, secretive and unfair,” lawyer Nathan Gorham alleged in court filings.

The Judicial Council referred the complaint against Justice Ferguson to a hearing panel but dismissed the complaints against Justices Stephenson and Christie.

The allegations include claims that Justice Ferguson privately questioned a lawyer about privileged information, that Justice Stephenson suggested he could order the arrest of a lawyer, and that Justice Christie violated procedural fairness during a murder trial by reading a formal judgment without prior notice.

The firm alleges the complaint process violates the fair-hearing principle and Section 7 of the Charter.

The Canadian Judicial Council, made up of chief and associate chief justices from across Canada, has applied to intervene in the case. It also initially sought to seal materials connected to dismissed or ongoing complaints, a move that could have kept much of the evidence from public view.

Gorham argued Canadians have a strong interest in knowing how complaints against judges are handled.

“After receiving credible complaints of serious abuse, including malicious interference with counsel, the CJC failed to investigate, failed to ensure a fair hearing, and failed to concern itself with objective truth,” he wrote.

The Judicial Council rejects the Charter claim, calling it a “bald allegation,” and says its work is guided by transparency, judicial independence and the public interest.

However, the council’s own annual report shows roughly two-thirds of complaints are dismissed during the initial screening stage by council staff. Complaints that survive are then reviewed by one of Canada’s senior judges, who decides whether the allegation against another judge should proceed.