The Attorney General of Ontario requested that an Inquiry Committee be convened by the Council to investigate the conduct of Justice Paul Cosgrove during the trial over which he presided in the case of R. v. Julia Yvonne Elliott

20040003 - The Attorney General of Ontario requested that an Inquiry Committee be convened by the Council to investigate the conduct of Mr. Justice Paul Cosgrove during the trial over which he presided in the case of R. v. Julia Yvonne Elliott.

In 1995, Julia Yvonne Elliott was charged with second-degree murder and interfering with a dead body in connection with the killing and dismemberment of a resident of Kemptville,Ontario. Following a preliminary inquiry and orders to stand trial on both counts, pre-trial applications commenced before Mr. Justice Cosgrove in 1997. In 1999, the judge stayed the proceedings as abuse of process and ordered the Crown to pay the accused’s legal costs from the outset of proceedings. In addition, Mr. Justice Cosgrove concluded that the alleged misconduct of the Crown and the police delayed the accused’s trial and therefore violated her s.11(b) Charter right to a trial within a reasonable time.The Crown appealed to the Court of Appeal for Ontario against the stay of proceedings and the order for costs.The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the order of Mr. Justice Cosgrove staying the proceedings, set aside his costs order and ordered a new trial.

A five-member Inquiry Committee was convened by the Council to investigate the conduct of Mr. Justice Cosgrove. Before hearing the substantive matter of the complaint,however, the Committee considered an application from Mr. Justice Cosgrove challenging the constitutional validity of s.63(1) of the Judges Act, which empowers the Attorney General of a province to request an inquiry into the conduct of a federally appointed judge, as the Attorney General of Ontario had done in this case.The Canadian Superior Court Judges Association and the Criminal Lawyers’Association both applied for and were granted intervenor status on the application.The substantive matter of the complaint has yet to be heard by the Committee.

The Committee found that s.63(1) of the Judges Act does not offend the principle of judicial independence and that s.2(b) of the Charter has no application in the circumstances of this case.The Committee noted that attorneys general occupy a unique position in the Canadian legal system and that “judges are not immune from the legitimate interests of the executive and legal branches of the government in ensuring the due administration of justice.”Mr. Justice Cosgrove has sought a judicial review of that decision to the Federal Court of Canada.