Several members of B.C. Provincial Court’s bench have been warned to choose their words more carefully after the chief judge examined hundreds of complaints this past year.
Chief Judge Melissa Gillespie’s findings were detailed in the court’s annual report for 2022-23.
“This year, 233 complaint submissions were found not to involve judicial misconduct and therefore not to be complaints within the authority of the chief judge,” the report said.
“Most of these amounted to appeals from a judicial decision, and the complainants were sent appropriate information about appealing,” it said.” Some did not relate to the Court, and complainants were referred to other agencies or organizations.”
Family court
A person complained the judge had snapped at them and was biased.
The court found the allegations of bias were unsupported after a review of the recorded proceedings.
The court accepted the judge’s explanations.
“In their response, the judge expressed regret for their conduct and apologized for their tone during the proceedings,” the report said. “Judges have a responsibility to seek to maintain a level of calm and serenity, even in the face of challenging circumstances, so as to provide confidence to parties and observers that judicial authority is being exercised fairly and in an even handed manner.
“While the judge’s serenity was at times broken during the proceedings, a review of the proceedings in total, the complaint, and the judge’s apology led to the conclusion that further examination was not warranted.”
Small claims
A person asserted a judge was biased against them, raised their voice when speaking to the complainant, made inappropriate comments which implied that the complainant was lying, and exhibited conduct described as “bullying.”
On review, the judge did not agree with the complainant’s characterizations of their conduct during the settlement conference and recalled that the inquiries that they put to the complainant were to assist in making a judicial decision and not intended to “bully” them or infer they were lying.
The court found no evidence of bias.
“It could not be fairly concluded that the judge engaged in any actions or comments that could be considered judicial misconduct,” the report said.
Intimate image
It was brought to the attention of the chief judge’s office that an image of an intimate nature of a justice of the peace was posted on social media.
A response was sought from the justice of the peace, who confirmed they were the person in the image. They immediately contacted the photographer to request that the image be removed and that no further images of them be posted.
The justice of the peace was directed to review educational materials related to judicial conduct and social media use, the report said.
“In light of the justice of the peace’s acknowledgement and swift action regarding the alleged conduct, it was determined that the complaint was resolved and no further action was required,” it said.
Perceived racism
A person expressed concerns about a judge’s comments, stating they were racist.
The reviewers listened to the recording. The judge expressed regret at how their words were perceived and clarified the intention of the comments that they made in court.
The Canadian Judicial Council’s Ethical Principles for Judges states that “Judges should avoid comments, expressions, gestures or behaviour which reasonably may be interpreted as showing insensitivity to or disrespect for anyone.”
The report said while the judge didn’t intend their comment to be insensitive or disrespectful, wording they used could reasonably be interpreted to be based on a racial or cultural stereotype and therefore should have been avoided.
“It was apparent that this matter was a helpful reminder to the judge of the ideals to which judges aspire, and how a judge’s actions during proceedings may be perceived by litigants. The judge was provided with a copy of the response to the complainant and the matter was closed on that basis,” the report said.
Courtroom access
Some complainants asserted the judicial case manager (JCM) denied them access to the courtroom when they had an initial appearance.
An audio recording of the proceedings was reviewed and a response was sought from the judicial case manager.
The judicial case manager noted that each accused was permitted to enter the courtroom while other parties not involved in the matter were asked to wait outside, due to courtroom size limitations but with the ability to listen to the proceedings.
“It could not be concluded that the judicial case manager engaged in any actions that could be considered judicial misconduct,” the report said. “The complainants were informed of the same and the matter was closed on that basis.”
Family matter
A complaint arose from the scheduling of a family matter with a person asserting that the JCM made a scheduling error and that, when this issue was raised prior to the proceedings, the JCM did not take their concerns seriously.
On review, the court found the JCM’s response confirmed there had been an error.
The judicial case manager acknowledged their error and apologized for such an error occurring and not being corrected prior to the hearing of the complainant’s family matter. The JCM also expressed regret that the complainant perceived that they were not taking their concerns seriously.
“From a review of the matter, when viewed against the judicial case manager’s response and apology, it was apparent that that the judicial case manager would see this case as a helpful reminder of the ideals to which judicial case managers aspire and the standards of conduct by which they are guided,” the report said.
