Two complainants complained about Madam Justice Southin of the British Columbia Court of Appeal in response to media reports that she smoked in her office and accepted changes to her chambers to accommodate a ventilation system

20020011 - Two complainants complained about Madam Justice Southin of the British Columbia Court of Appeal in response to media reports that she smoked in her office and accepted changes to her chambers to accommodate a ventilation system. One complainant alleged that the judge’s disregard for her own health and apparent lack of interest in setting an example for others were an affront to the reputation of the judiciary and the high standards of behaviour expected of judges. The judge should apologize and reimburse the government for the ventilation system, the complainant stated. The second complainant, Vancouver lawyer Dugald Christie, alleged that by her actions Madam Justice Southin had brought the administration of justice into disrepute. In a second letter, Mr. Christie argued that Madam Justice Southin’s dissenting reasons in a decision in Reilly v. Lynn were an “effrontery” to the Supreme Court of Canada. He also argued that when cases were argued before her by the provincial government or its Crown corporations, she would be beholden to the Attorney General for providing the changes in her chambers.

The complaints were dealt with by a Vice- Chairperson of the Judicial Conduct Committee, who advised that the judge’s smoking and the installation of a ventilation system in her chambers at the direction of the B.C. Attorney General, “do not fall within the ambit of judicial conduct reviewable under the Judges Act.” B.C.’s Occupational Health and Safety Regulations place the onus on the Attorney General to control exposure to workplace smoke by prohibitions, restrictions or “other equally effective means.” In this case, it was up to the Attorney General to decide how the province would comply with the regulation. The first complainant was advised that the Council had no jurisdiction or power to require reimbursement of the government or to ask the judge to apologize. Mr. Christie was advised that the Council had no jurisdiction to review whether a judicial decision was correct and that he had provided no evidence of bias or conflict of interest. Because Mr. Christie’s complaint was in the public domain, the Council issued a news release setting out the disposition of the file.