A review panel of the Canadian Judicial Council reaches a decision in a matter involving the Honourable Bernard Tremblay
Ottawa, September 17, 2026 – A review panel constituted by the Canadian Judicial Council (Council) has completed its review and rendered a decision with respect to two complaints involving Justice Bernard Tremblay of the Superior Court of Québec.
The first complaint alleges that Justice Tremblay engaged in inappropriate conduct by repeatedly contacting the complainant over a period of years on an unsolicited basis, despite her requests that he stop contacting her.
The second complaint raised concerns about the duty of chief justices to provide court staff with a peaceful environment, free from all forms of inappropriate behaviour such as harassment or pressure from a person in a position of authority. It alleged that Justice Tremblay had instructed his counsel to hire an investigator who had contacted two members of the Court staff and made them feel uncomfortable. Further, the complaint noted an apparent inconsistency between the judge’s statement to a previous review panel that he had apologized, and subsequent assertions that he felt no remorse and had done nothing wrong. The complaint also noted that Justice Tremblay had refused to sign a mentoring agreement, which was an action imposed on him by the previous review panel and that he himself had proposed.
Following a review of the complaints by a screening officer, they were referred to the Honourable Faye E. McWatt, Associate Chief Justice of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, as the designated reviewing member. Following her own review of the file and after investigations were conducted, Associate Chief Justice McWatt referred the complaints to a review panel pursuant to section 95 of the Judges Act (the Act), and section 7.11(b) of the Council’s Review Procedures.
After reviewing the complaints and all the documentation on file, the review panel concluded, in light of the relevant provisions of the Act, the Marshall test, and the evidence before it, that the first complaint involves judicial misconduct and, if the allegations are substantiated, could warrant Justice Tremblay’s removal from office. Accordingly, the review panel decided to refer the complaint to the Council for the purpose of establishing a full hearing panel, pursuant to section 101 of the Act. The review panel noted that it will be the role of the full hearing panel, further to considering the evidence and the submissions of the parties, to make determinative findings of fact, assess the credibility and reliability of the evidence, and decide whether the conduct at issue warrants Justice Tremblay’s removal from office.
Regarding the second complaint, the review panel concluded that Justice Tremblay had engaged in misconduct, but that the misconduct, on its own, would not be sufficiently serious to warrant his removal from office. However, the review panel was of the view that the complaint could not be dismissed. The review panel was concerned that Justice Tremblay appeared insensitive to the impact his conduct may have on others, particularly those in a position subordinate to his own. The review panel also noted the lack of caution shown by Justice Tremblay in failing to take mitigating steps with respect to the investigation conducted by his lawyers, as well as in his use of social media. The panel therefore decided to impose an action under section 102 of the Act and issued a warning to Justice Tremblay.
Finally, the review panel also dismissed a request by Justice Tremblay to keep the process and the review panel’s decision completely confidential. However, the review panel concluded that the identity of the complainant in the first complaint, as well as those of the staff members concerned in the second complaint, and any other identifying information, must be protected by anonymization and redaction.
The review panel was comprised of the Honourable Martine St-Louis, Associate Chief Justice of the Federal Court, the Honourable Julie Thorburn, Justice of the Court of Appeal of Ontario, and a member of the public, Mr. André Dulude.
A copy of the review panel’s full decision can be accessed from the Council’s website.
About the Canadian Judicial Council
The Council was created in 1971 by Parliament to maintain and improve the quality of judicial services in Canada's superior courts. It has the power and duty to investigate complaints into the conduct of federally appointed judges. The Council is also responsible for the continuing education of judges, as well as for developing other tools and programs to maintain public confidence in the judicial system.
-30-
Contact:
Krista Ferraro
Director of Communications and Strategic Issues Management
Canadian Judicial Council
info@cjc-ccm.ca