Skip to main content
 
Reset
"Conseil de la magistrature du quebec""Conseil de la magistrature du quebec"

Decisions Summary

 

The Conseil de la magistrature provides you with tables summarizing decisions on different subjects. This tool can be useful to write your complaint or to assess whether the criticisms you wish to make against a judge are of an ethical nature.

The following examples of decisions are for informational purposes only. Several factors can influence the Conseil’s decision, as it depends on the context of the case. In summary, each case is different, and each decision depends on the facts reported to the Conseil.

The full version of the Conseil’s decisions can be found here.

You can also consult the book Applied judicial Ethics .

DECISION 1

Nature of decision Examination of complaint
Alleged misconduct The alleged misconduct relates to the signing of two arrest warrants by the judge while he was sitting in the Court of Québec, Criminal and Penal Division, namely:
  • placing himself in a conflict of interest by signing warrants against the complainant, when the complainant had filed a complaint against the judge with the Conseil de la magistrature du Québec in 2021.
Ethical duties at issue Duty to avoid any conflict of interest and refrain from placing himself in a position where he cannot faith fully carry out his functions (s. 4 of the Judicial Code of Ethics).
OutcomeThe complaint is without merit.
ReasonsNothing in the report on the examination of the prior complaint refers to any conflict of interest that might prevent the judge from dealing with any future case involving the complainant.

The mere fact that the complainant filed a complaint with the Conseil de la magistrature against a judge does not prevent that judge from sitting on cases involving the complainant.

The complaints against the judge express the complainant’s disagreement with the orders rendered. It is not within the mission of the Conseil de la magistrature to evaluate the merits of judicial decisions.
Full decisionRead the full decision here.

DECISION 2

Nature of decision Examination of complaint
Alleged misconductThe alleged misconduct by the judge named in the complaint relates to a case management hearing on the pre-trial applications of the complainant (a lawyer being prosecuted for offences under the Professional Code), and consists of:
  • making a decision when the judge knew he was in a conflict of interests, and the trial should have been presided by a colleague from another region;
  • having a hostile attitude toward the complainant.
Ethical duties at issue
  • Duty to avoid any conflict of interest and refrain from placing himself in a position where he cannot faithfully carry out his functions (s. 4 of the Judicial Code of Ethics)
  • Duty to act in a reserved, serene and courteous manner (s. 8 of the Judicial Code of Ethics)
    • Outcome The complaint is without merit.
    ReasonsThe judicial practice whereby the trial of a justice system participant is presided by a judge from a region other than the one where the participant exercises his or her functions is not based on a presumption of the partiality of the judges of the region in question. Rather, it is a measure intended to facilitate the management of judicial matters in case that person continues to exercise his or her function or profession in the same region after the trial.

    Regarding the judge’s attitude, the recording of the debates reveals that he presided the hearing with firmness without being aggressive toward the complainant and that the discussions were polite and respectful.
    Full decision Read the full decision here.

    DECISION 3

    Nature of decision Examination of complaint
    Alleged misconduct The alleged misconduct relates to the conduct of a judge while he was sitting in the Municipal Court, and consists of:
    • failing to inform the parties of his relationship with the father of the defence lawyer, who is his business partner.
    Ethical duties at issue
    • Duty to avoid any conflict of interest and refrain from placing himself in a position where he cannot faithfully carry out his functions (s. 4 Code of Ethics for Municipal Judges of Québec)
    • Duty of impartiality and objectivity (s. 5 Code of Ethics for Municipal Judges of Québec)
    Outcome It is recommended that the judge named in the complaint be reprimanded.
    Reasons Observance of judicial ethics demands a judge’s constant vigilance because it guarantees that the parties will be judged in a fair and impartial manner.

    In this case, the issue is not the judge’s impartiality, but rather the apparent conflict of interest he failed to disclose.

    The complainant, who is a clerk at the municipal court, made a complaint due to the judge’s remarks following a hearing he presided, which made her feel uneasy about his impartiality.

    During his testimony before the committee of inquiry, the judge tried to minimize his relationship with his business partner. Yet his relationship with the lawyer is significant: they have been joint shareholders for 20 years.

    The proximity in a "small world" where "everyone knows everyone" required greater vigilance with respect to the appearance of impartiality.

    It is important that the punishment send a message to the judge and the entire judiciary.

     A reprimand is the appropriate measure.

    It takes into account the fact that he has been a judge for 20 years and that he has no disciplinary record.
    Full decision Read the full decision here.

    DECISION 1

    Nature of decision Examination of complaint
    Alleged misconduct The alleged misconduct relates to a hearing presided by the judge against whom the complaint was filed, while he was sitting in the Court of Québec, Small Claims Division, namely :
    • refusal to hear a case
    • the nature of the judge’s exchanges with the complainant and the curt and even hostile tone he used with him without apparent justification.
    Ethical duties at issue
    • Duty to render justice within the framework of the law (s. 1 of the Judicial Code of Ethics)
    • Duty to perform the duties of his office diligently and devote himself entirely to the exercise of his judicial functions (s. 6 of the Judicial Code of Ethics)
    • Duty of to act in a reserved, serene and courteous manner (s. 8 of the Judicial Code of Ethics)
    Outcome The removal of the judge is recommended, with dissenting reasons.
    Reasons The judge’s image of authority does not justify his curtness or insistence on postponing the case in the absence of conciliation. This uncompromising attitude brings the administration of justice into disrepute and impedes the orderly conduct of proceedings.

    The tone and nature of the remarks made to the complainant, who was merely reporting the words of a third party, were inappropriate and hurtful.

    The judge’s conduct constitutes a serious recurrence of conduct for which he has been faulted before.

    The breaches of sections 1 and 6 of the Judicial Code of Ethics do not constitute mere carelessness on the judge’s part or an unintended result, but are rather a reflection of how he sees his role, in particular when sitting in the Small Claims Division.

    The judge’s conduct is a clear expression of his lack of interest in hearing the parties and rendering justice.

    Despite the reprimand he has received, the judge does not understand the extent of his ethical duties, the primary ones being to hear the parties and render judgment.

     Where a judge openly refuses to fulfill the duties he was appointed to perform, there is only one possible conclusion: removal.

    The dissenting members of the committee of inquiry recommended a reprimand.

    Full decision Read the full decision here.
    Case history The Court of Appeal of Quebec declared, with dissenting reasons, that a reprimand was appropriate, thereby confirming the sanction recommended by the dissenting members of the committee of inquiry.

    Read the full decision of that judgment here.

    DECISION 2

    Nature of decision Examination of complaint
    Alleged misconduct The alleged misconduct by the judge named in the complaint relates to a hearing he presided, and consists of:
    • using the expression “shut up” and refusing to deal with an application for recusation related to his use of that expression;
    • lacking courtesy and respect toward the complainant and refusing to specify when he expected to render judgment.
    Ethical duties at issue
    • Duty of integrity, dignity and honour (s. 2 of the Judicial Code of Ethics))
    • Duty to act in a reserved, serene and courteous manner (s. 8 of the Judicial Code of Ethics)
    Outcome The complaint is without merit.
    Reasons A judge must manage the proceeding and ensure good order in the courtroom. The judge was trying to restore good order when the application for recusation was made orally, and the complainant did not reiterate his application when the hearing resumed: the judge cannot be faulted in this regard.

    A judge must render judgment in writing and give reasons. A judge may take the case under advisement and does not have to specify when he expects to render judgment. .The judge named in the complaint acted with diligence in rendering his judgment within two months of the hearing.

    Regarding the judge’s statements, the expression used is questionable: a judge should never address a litigant with the words he used.

    Although the judge did not act with the dignity and serenity expected, considering all the circumstances and the difficulty of maintaining order and managing the debates when the judge made the remarks, there is no need to conduct an inquiry.



    Full decision Read the full decision here.

    DECISION 3

    Nature of decision Examination of complaint
    Alleged misconduct The alleged misconduct relates to a judicial decision dismissing the complainant’s applications and condemning him to pay legal costs rendered by the judge named in the complaint while he was sitting in the Court of Québec, Small Claims Division, and consists of:
    • making certain comments in the decision;
    • making remarks concerning the “egotistical, egocentric, and narcissistic character” of the complainant, even though the judge does not have the professional qualifications to make this diagnosis.
    Ethical duties at issue Duty to act in a reserved, serene and courteous manner (s. 8 of the Judicial Code of Ethics)
    Outcome The complaint is without merit.
    Reasons The judge’s remarks concerning the“egotistical, egocentric, and narcissistic character” of the complainant come from the analysis of the complainant’s behaviour (video recording).The terms used by the judge are not exclusive to a medical diagnosis.

    In the circumstances of this case, the Conseil does not find that the way the judge chose to express the conclusions based on his assessment of the evidence constitutes a breach of ethics.

    The complaint constitutes the expression of the complainant’s dissatisfaction with the judicial conclusions on the assessment of the evidence presented and the decision rendered.

    The Conseil is not an appellate or reviewing body. It is not within its mission to evaluate the merits of judicial decisions.
    Full decisionRead the full decision here.

    DECISION 4

    Nature of decision Examination of complaint
    Alleged misconduct The alleged misconduct by the judge named in the complaint relates to a trial he presided while sitting in the Court of Québec, Criminal and Penal Division, regarding a count of breach of probation, the outcome of which was the conviction of the complainant, who was self-represented. The Court of Appeal quashed the verdict and noted in its judgment that, during the trial:
    • the judge did not offer the complainant any assistance;
    • the judge intervened "sarcastically";
    • the judge did not seem concerned with procedural fairness, but rather with getting through the trial as quickly as possible.
    Ethical duties at issue
    • Duty of impartiality and objectivity (s. 5 of the Judicial Code of Ethics)
    Outcome It is recommended that the judge named in the complaint be reprimanded.
    Reasons The duty to be impartial requires not only that a judge be impartial, but also that he or she be seen to be impartial.

    At no point during the entire trial did the judge offer his assistance to the complainant, even minimally.

    The recording of the trial reveals that the judge was hurried and impatient.

    The need to rigorously manage the conduct of the trial cannot justify the judge’s curt tone.

    Far from presiding over this case with an open mind and with the patience required in such circumstances, the judge imposed a disconcerting and unnerving pace on the complainant.

    Trial fairness was marred.

    The judge named in the complaint breached his ethical duty to be, and be seen to be, impartial and objective.

    Full decision Read the full decision here.

    DECISION 1

    Nature of decision Examination of complaints
    Alleged misconduct The alleged misconduct by the judge named in the complaint relates to a judicial decision granting a conditional discharge to an accused who pleaded guilty to charges of sexual assault and voyeurism, and consists of:
    • the potentially harmful consequences of this decision on citizens’ trust in the judicial system and the recovery and dignity of victims;
    • his errors in assessing the facts and in analyzing the law and the factors or criteria for determining a fit sentence.
    Ethical duties at issue Duty to render justice within the framework of the law (s. 1 of the Judicial Code of Ethics)
    Outcome The complaints are without merit.
    ReasonsThe freedom of expression of judges in the performance of their duties is an essential attribute of every judge’s decision-making judicial independence.

    The Conseil de la magistrature is not an appellate or reviewing body. It cannot make any approving or disapproving comments on the correctness of a decision rendered.

    The fact that a judge erred in law does not give rise to a disciplinary process, but rather to an appeal.

    The complaints do not concern any ethical breach in connection with the judge’s conduct.

    It is for the Court of Appeal to consider the arguments of the Director of Criminal and Penal Prosecutions echoing the complainants’ allegations.
    Full decision Read the full decision here.

    DECISION 2

    Nature of decision Examination of complaint
    Alleged misconductThe alleged misconduct relates to a hearing presided by the judge named in the complaint while she was sitting in the Court of Québec, Youth Division, and consists of:
    • failing to consider the needs of the children in her order and the efforts of their father, the complainant;
    • considering irrelevant elements.
    Ethical duties at issue Duty of impartiality and objectivity (s. 5 of the Judicial Code of Ethics)
    OutcomeThe complaint is without merit.
    ReasonsThe complainant’s allegations against the judge express his disagreement with the decision rendered. The fact that this situation is emotionally difficult must not lead the Conseil to disregard this finding.

    It is not within the mission of the Conseil to evaluate the merits of judicial decisions, .but to consider whether an allegation that a judge breached his or her ethical duties has merit. No such allegations are present in this case, however.

    Full decision Read the full decision here.

    DECISION 3

    Nature of decisionExamination of complaint
    Alleged misconductThe alleged misconduct relates to a hearing presided by the judge named in the complaint that resulted in the complainant being convicted of an impaired driving offence and sentenced to a term of imprisonment, and consists of:
    • failing to accept one witness’s testimony over another’s that was favourable to the complainant;
    • imposing a “very harsh” sentence given the complainant’s health and his other personal problems;
    • inadequate preparation of the complainant’s lawyer who said he would negotiate a "minimum sentence" if he agreed to admit his guilt.
    Ethical duties at issue Duty of impartiality and objectivity (s. 5 of the Judicial Code of Ethics)
    Outcome The complaint is without merit.
    Reasons The complainant’s allegation against the judge expresses his disagreement with the decisions rendered.

    It is not within the mission of the Conseil to evaluate the merits of judicial decisions , made during or following the hearing, but to decide whether the judge breached his or her ethical duties. No such duties are at issue in this case, however .

    The Conseil has no jurisdiction over lawyers and therefore makes no ruling of any kind on the complainant’s allegation regarding the services / rendered by his lawyer.
    Full decision Read the full decision here.