The Canadian Judicial Council will hold a public meeting in the case of Justice Paul Cosgrove

Ottawa, 28 January 2009 - The Honourable Paul Cosgrove, of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, has presented written submissions and informed the Council that he will appear before Council to make a brief oral statement about the Inquiry Committee’s report. That report, made public on 4 December 2008, concluded that there are grounds to justify a recommendation for the judge’s removal from judicial office.         

In order to hear Justice Cosgrove’s oral statement, the Canadian Judicial Council will hold a public meeting on 6 March 2009, beginning at 9:30 a.m. in Ballroom B at the InterContinental Toronto Centre, 225 Front Street West, in Toronto, Ontario. Justice Cosgrove’s lawyer will make representations, as will Independent Counsel. The role of Independent Counsel is to represent the public interest.

The Inquiry Committee’s report and Justice Cosgrove’s written submission are available on the Council’s website. Any response by Independent Counsel will also be made available on the Council’s website. 

After hearing all submissions, the Council will prepare a recommendation to the Minister of Justice, indicating whether Justice Cosgrove should be removed from office for any of the reasons set out in section 65(2) of the Judges Act.  In accordance with Canada’s Constitution, a judge may only be removed from office through a joint resolution of Parliament.  


The Canadian Judicial Council is composed of the chief justices and associate chief justices of Canada’s superior courts.  Information about the Council, including documents related to the Inquiry Committee in this matter, can be found on the Council’s website: www.cjc-ccm.gc.ca

Contact:
Norman Sabourin, Executive Director and Senior General Counsel
613-288-1566 ext. 301

Background Information:

The Inquiry Committee that reviewed the conduct of Justice Cosgrove is composed of three judicial members, appointed by the Canadian Judicial Council, and two senior lawyers, appointed by the Minister of Justice. The members of the Committee are:

The Honourable Lance Finch, Chief Justice of the Court of Appeal for British Columbia (Chairperson); The Honourable Michael MacDonald, Chief Justice of the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal; The Honourable Allan Wachowich, Chief Justice of the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta; John P. Nelligan, Q.C., Barrister and Solicitor, Ottawa, Ontario; and Kirby Chown, Barrister and Solicitor, Toronto, Ontario.

Mr Earl Cherniak, Q.C., of the firm Lerners, is the Independent Counsel regarding this matter.  The mandate of Independent Counsel is to act in the public interest and to bring all relevant facts and points of law before the Committee for its consideration, and to respond to any further representations made to Council by the judge.  Justice Cosgrove is represented by Chris Paliare of the firm Paliare Roland Barristers.
                        

Complaints and Inquiries process:

When someone believes that a judge’s personal conduct (on or off the bench) is in question, a complaint may be made to the Canadian Judicial Council. The Council examines only issues of conduct and does not review a judge’s decision in law.

The complaints process is simple: the complaint must be in writing, and it must concern the conduct of a federally appointed judge. No special forms are necessary. No legal counsel is required. No fees are charged. To the extent possible, the Council reviews anonymous complaints in the same way as complaints that are signed.

When a complaint is made, the question before the Council is ultimately whether or not a judge’s conduct prevents that judge from discharging his duties as a judge. In such a case, the Council must decide whether or not to recommend that a judge be removed from office.

A complaint is first reviewed by a member of the Judicial Conduct Committee. A complaint can be dismissed when it is clearly frivolous or does not fall within the mandate of the Council. In roughly half of cases, the complaint is studied in more detail and the judge in question, as well as judge’s chief justice, are sent a copy of the complaint and asked for their comments. The complaint is often resolved at this stage, with an appropriate letter of explanation to the complainant.

If the complaint cannot be resolved at that stage, the file can be referred to a Panel of up to five judges for further review. When a Panel concludes that the complaint has merit but is not serious enough to move to the next stage (a formal hearing by an Inquiry Committee) then the Panel may close the file with an expression of concern, or may recommend counselling or other remedial measures.

When the complaint may be serious enough to warrant the judge’s removal, the Panel can recommend that the Council establish an Inquiry Committee. After completing its investigation, an Inquiry Committee reports its findings to the Canadian Judicial Council. The Council then decides whether or not to recommend to the Minister of Justice of Canada that the judge be removed from office. In accordance with the provision of Canada’s Constitution, a judge may be removed from office only after a joint resolution by Parliament.