Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs
March 6, 2023
Identical letter sent to the Speaker of the House, Anthony Rota on Feb 21, 2023
Canadian Judges claim not to be bound by the constraints on their authority by the Charter and refuse to allow the legitimate debate appropriate in a free and democratic State, to permit the appropriate checks and balances. When presented with the facts supporting this allegation the Minister of Justice made false and misleading statements regarding his duties and as an Attorney General refused to respond to the Enforcement Procedure of the Charter s 24(1). The refusal of the Executive to comply with the terms of our governing agreement, our Constitution creates a Constitutional Crisis. The principles of Parliamentary Sovereignty and Democracy dictate that Parliament speaking for the People are the Penultimate decision makers to legitimately resolve this issue to perform their role in the protection of the public interest for peace, order and good government.
I will be serving Parliament directly with the Enforcement Procedure of the Charter in the coming days and as the procedure laid out by the Ministry of Justice has been ignored by the Executive in an obstruction of Justice and denied by Judges in a breach of public trust I thought to communicate with the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs on the next most appropriate procedure.
A Parliamentary Petition on the matter didnt work the first time we tried in 2021, the sponsoring MP was approached by the Government and crossed the floor and never presented. The subsequent petition #3848 was completed on June 16, 2022 but never presented. Both of the associated MP’s, being informed of the public concern, joined the rest of Parliamentarians in voting for the Judges Act, in conflict with the public interest and contradicting the claim that input from all stakeholders, including the public, had been considered. There was no public consultation and no interest in what the public had to say. I communicated with my MP, as well as the Official Leader of the Opposition and the Shadow Minister of Justice. I have communicated with the Leader of the NDP regarding his role, the NDP-Liberal confidence agreement was signed within a month of my communication with the Governor-General regarding her role, particularly within the framework of a minority government, where she is not obliged to accept the legal opinion of the Minister of Justice. So, I propose I serve the House of Commons, for the House to fulfill it’s democratic function to check the powers of the Executive and Judiciary. I could easily send the matter to all Members of Parliament directly or proceed in any other manner that you propose.
The Canadian Judicial Council receives over 600 complaints every year alleging misconduct by federal judges, Less than 0.1% of these result in a referral to council. The complaints that do make it through are mostly relate to allegations of sexual, racial, or drug misconduct. The reminder are dismissed by the gatekeeper as within the exercise of the discretion of the judge and a claim that discretion cannot be judged as conduct. In my own complaint the Judicial Council determined that Judges have discretion on their acceptance of the official record of trial, the transcript, the best evidence that any Canadian could provide. The current acceptable conduct of Judges includes calling the Plaintiff to the stand and asking her what she heard a judge say 6 months previously, and preferring that to the official court record, the transcript that I presented, to correct a lawyer committing fraud upon the Court with a fraudulent court order. I had also reported to the Court that a lawyer was not complying with a court order to provide monthly trust account statements but the Judge and the Judicial Council did not deem that to be a problem. I suggested to the Council that they reconsider but they did not change their perspective. I made a complaint regarding the Judge who dismissed my complaint but the gatekeeper responded that I was abusing the process.
If you cannot report criminal activity in a legal system you do not have a justice system you have organized crime, sanctioned by the State.
The duty of the Minister of Justice is to protect the public and, to ensure that administration of Justice is in compliance with the Law. Which it isn’t, because I had served the Deputy AG’s office by registered mail following the procedures set out by the Ministry of Justice and following the enforcement procedure of s24(1) of the Charter and requested that Parliament exercise it’s jurisdiction over the conduct of judges, under section 99 of the Constitution. I received no response. A breach of the Charter. I wrote to the PM’s Office and they forwarded the problem to Marco Mendicino acknowledging the public safety concern. I received no response.
In the court system I presented evidence of failures in the Rule of Law throughout the Canadian Legal System and the problem of Judges claiming absolute unreviewable discretion and requested that they issue a writ of mandamus for the Minister of Justice to present this to Parliament. Justice refused to rule, failing the role of a Judge, s 80 c) of the Judges Act. I appealed to the BC Court of Appeal but they refused to allow debate on the matter. The Judiciary lacks the legitimate attributes to claim an ability to perceive the “public interest” and are willfully blind in their concept of what is “good behavior” for a judge, section 99 of the Constitution, and fatally flawed in their determination of what a “fair-minded and informed observer would consider to be incompatible with the due execution of judicial office.” as defined by section 80 d) in the Judges Act.
The established precedent is that “no-one can be a judge in their own cause”. The rules for the judging of judicial conduct; “Is the conduct alleged so manifestly and profoundly destructive of the concept of impartiality, integrity and independence of the judicial role, that public confidence would be sufficiently undermined to render the judge incapable of executing the judicial office?” and ”Judicial independence exists for the benefit of the judged, not the judges. It is therefore to be assessed from the perspective of the reasonable observer and in light of the public interests it is meant to serve.” It is obvious that the Judiciary are unable to resolve this matter internally, that is why Democracy has checks and balances and Parliament is the legitimate and constitutional body to perform the function of the examination of judicial conduct, speak democratically to the public interest, and they are the only body with the jurisdiction to provide the remedy required, to dismiss a judge, under s99 of the Constitution.
I presented a brief before the House of Commons Committee on Justice and Human Rights disclosing these problems and it was posted prior to the debate on the proposed Judges Act. I requested to be heard before the Committee on the same day as the man with the hearing impairment was selected. Before his presentation he was told that the Bill was going to pass, that the MP, a former crown prosecutor, had investigated the citizen, and then he was asked if he had anything to say. No mention was made of the issue I presented in the brief before the Committee. The Judge’s Act is now before the Senate and I have informed the appropriate Senate Committees and every Senator of the problems I outline in this email.
I communicated with the Premiers of the Provinces and Territories in late December 2022 and a week later they requested a shake down from the PM for “health care funding”.
The Ethics Commissioner in 2021 accepted my complaint regarding the conduct of the Minister of Justice improperly protecting lawyers and judges by refusing to respond to the enforcement procedure of the Charter.
The RCMP National Division Intake Unit has the “mandate to safeguard and investigate significant threats to Canada’s political, economic and social integrity” concerning complaints about “federally elected members of Parliament.” However, when I reported that the Minister of Justice was failing to respond to a Charter complaint to have judicial conduct examined by Parliament and provided them a copy of my Charter complaint, they wrote, “any future communications…unless solicited…will not be reviewed and will be destroyed.”
The matter was presented as evidence to the Emergencies Act Inquiry and they acknowledged receipt on Dec 26, 2022.
I notified CSIS at the very end of 2022.
The AG’s office refuses to respond to a Constitutional Question on the constitutionality of the AG refusing to respond to the Enforcement Procedure of the Charter and subsequently a Constitutional Question on the constitutionality of not responding to a constitutional question. Refusing to respond cannot be said to be in “good faith”. The problem goes to the legitimacy of the Executive as they are in breach of the Constitution, meaning they are illegitimate. It also goes to the integrity of the Public Service as the Judiciary is the administrative head of the Public Service. The Judiciary claims not to be bound by their own documentation. How does any citizen trust a Public Service that claims that they can make up evidence to protect criminal activity? How does any citizen trust any Parliamentarian who does not protect the “public interest”.
The problem with the Judges Act and the proposed reform, Bill c-9 is that there continues to be in the process, zero protection for the public. Despite claims to the contrary, there has been zero consultation with the public, whom the justice system purports to serve. The claim that the lay person process is an improvement is simply a fabrication. The process is; first, a screening officer removes some complaints and sends some to a reduced hearing panel which comprises only of judges. If that panel passes it, then it goes to a full hearing panel, where a lay person, may be included, from a list of any number ( including 0 ) and the only qualification for that position, besides not being a lawyer is that the Council appoint them. The previous Judges Act didn’t include the full panel option so they added another step at the very end of the existing procedure and claimed the process is more efficient.
Parliament must assert its authority to maintain Parliamentary Supremacy, protect Democracy, and work to re-establish trust and the rule of law for Canadians. Denial is destructive. Free and legitimate debate is how democracy is protected. Unfortunately for the integrity of the impartiality of Parliament the Judge who initially created this problem had previously had his fitness as a Judge debated in the House, when in 1999 he declared the law on child pornography to be unconstitutional and MP’s were determined for his removal however they folded their resolve to comply with the Minister of Justice pleadings to allow the Justice system to internally regulate.
Is this the Canada we leave to our children?
No Canadian will trust a justice system that cannot determine right and wrong between accepting the transcript and soliciting perjury. A Judge that supports a claim of absolute power is not fit to be a judge in a democracy. A legal system that fails to protect the integrity of our governing agreement is not fit for purpose. Parliament must perform its constitutional duty for Peace, Order and Good Government.
I have done my very best as a Canadian citizen to communicate at all times with the appropriate authorities following the law and procedures. Nobody is above the law in a democracy. We are equal and have a right to face our abusers and see justice done in a fair and impartial tribunal complying with constitutional and democratic values. These are human rights that are enshrined in our Constitution and represent the values that Canadians share. There is a path forward to restore trust. Canada will be a better place for our efforts.