Canadian Judicial Council
Home Canadian Judicial Council Universal Basic Income Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin External Website Links Must Watch Video Democrocy Code of Canada News Media RCMP Assault War Measures Act Explained Contact Us








A Government of Canada Accepted Judgement
Kamloops Judge Blair Allegations Failed to Appear Anywhere
B.C. Court of Appeal was NOT permitted


Canadian Judicial Council - Home Page

Kamloops B.C. Supreme Court Justice Richard Blair is an easily proved fraud..
The Government of Canada does not intend to openly hear the proof of Fraud setting this case as the accepted standard for all Federally Appointed Judges. Equality in law is claimed herein.
A Government  accepted judicial fraud. Alleged evidence failed to appear anywhere.
Justice Blair's fraudulent representation. Fraudulent allegations. Constructed reports for benefit.
B.C. Supreme Court Justice Richard Blair's dinner at the home of expert witness and refusal to step aside when requested.
An accepted court ordered closed court, no trial, no witnesses, no cross-examination permitted .
Proof of fraud is real, yet Justice Richard Blair is saved by the Prime Minister and Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin.
Fraud. Dr. White has it both ways, paid for the same attendance alleged by Judge Blair to never happen.
An accepted constructive judgement, Judge Blair's total lack of credibility and discretion.
Court ordered payment of court costs resulting from fraud and judgement construction.
Both law and evidence fraudulently withheld by Justice Blair for a benefit.
Justice Blair not required to explain nor produce his alleged evidence. Equality in Canadian law is claimed herein.
Prime Minister and Chief Justice Beverley Mclachlin obstruction and participation in fraud within Canadian courts.
B.C. Court of Appeal makes Government accepted fraudulent claims. An appeal not permitted.
All future equality in Canadian Law and legal rights are claimed by this family.

In most areas of judgement it would be Justice Blair's very inability to provide thoughtful, reasonable answers to questions that would uncover his many unsupported claims. It is not possible to fully explore some of the evidence appearing within judgement without first having Justice Blair explain and be cross examined on the formal record. Both the Government of Canada and Judicial Council did not ask that Justice Blair provide the alleged evidence which failed to appear anywhere. They have refused to see the evidence. This precedent can prevent future examination.
"The Plaintiff was ordered by Justice Blair not use any notes or read from affidavits on the grounds that "he could read faster", The Plaintiff struggled to remember the law and what he intended to say. He was emotional."
"Nothing could have been done to prevent this type of attack on evidence. It was totally beyond the Plaintiff's control. Justice Blair is not required to explain his allegations within judgement."
Maybe B.C. Supreme Court Justice Richard Blair should seek professional psychiatric assistance for the problems he has in making allegations that do not appear within the evidence.
The Government of Canada and Canadian Judicial Council have protected a Supreme Court Judge's ability to commit fraud, have friends as witnesses and allege evidence that fails to appear anywhere.. fraud is claimed. All equality rights are claimed.
Nothing disputes this Website - There is Fraud in Canadian Courts, Government of Canada and Canadian Judicial Council
A request to present proof of fraud, involvement and misconduct was formally made to the Canadian Prime Minister, Canadian Justice Department and Canadian Chief Justice Beverley Mclachlin. They quite easily refused the ability to present this proof of fraud after they had been presented with the facts. Judge Blair does not have to produce his alleged evidence nor explain.

In this case the Prime Minister and Chief Justice of Canada, Beverley McLachlin claims of an independent court intended to suppress open scrutiny of Judge Blair and deprive this family's ability to question and present proof of misconduct, judgement construction and fraud. Removal of B.C. Supreme Court Justice Richard Blair is not an issue for the courts.

This is a Canadian standard set by the Government of Canada and Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin as this family demands equality in Canadian law. All future legal and equality rights are claimed and this family demands equality in Canadian Law.

Canadian Judicial Courts Logo
Evidence 1 | Evidence 2 | Evidence 3 | Evidence 4 | Evidence 5 | Evidence 6 | Evidence 7 | Evidence 8 | Evidence 9 | Evidence 10 | Evidence 11
Evidence 12 | Evidence 13 | Evidence 14
Home | Canadian Judicial Council | Universal Basic Income | Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin | External Website Links | Must Watch Video | Democrocy Code of Canada | News Media | RCMP Assault | War Measures Act Explained Contact Us
Email: info@canadianjudicialcouncil.com
https://canadianjudicialcouncil.com
Copyright © 2002 - 2021 all rights reserved.








About the Canadian Judicial Council and Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin

The Canadian Judicial Council Mandate

Part II of the Judges Act establishes the Canadian Judicial Council mandate.

The Canadian Judicial Council is a federal body created under the Judges Act (R.S., 1985, c. J-1), with the mandate to promote efficiency, uniformity, and accountability, and to improve quality of judicial service in the superior courts of Canada. The Canadian Judicial Council is also mandated to review any complaint or allegation against a superior court judge. These are appointed by the federal government. In most provinces, there is a provincial judicial council mandated in regard to provincially-appointed judges.

The Canadian Judicial Council is chaired by the Chief Justice of Canada, currently the Right Honourable Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin. There are 38 other Canadian Judicial Council members, who are the chief justices and associate chief justices of Canada’s superior courts, the senior judges of the territorial courts, and the Chief Justice Beverley Mclachlin of the Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada.

The Canadian Judicial Council was granted power under the Judges Act to investigate complaints made by members of the public or Attorney

General about the conduct (not the decisions) of federally appointed judges. After its review and investigation of a complaint, the Canadian Judicial Council can make recommendations, including to Parliament through the Minister of Justice that a judge be removed from office.

By directing complaints to the Canadian Judicial Council, Canada's Parliament acknowledges that the public must have a way to voice its concerns about judges. At the same time, the system must allow judges to respond to allegations of misconduct in a fair way. The entire process must be efficient, fair, and objective. In all cases, judicial independence – the foundation of Canadian justice – is central to the process.

Canada is one of the very few countries where a complaint can be made against the Chief Justice Beverley Mclachlin in the same way as any other judge.

The Canadian Judicial Council was created in 1971 following years of discussion about the need to coordinate professional development and judicial conduct matters for judges, in a way that would respect the judiciary as an independent branch of government. The review of complaints had previously usually been coordinated by the federal Department of Justice, with the occasional involvement of local Chief Justices like Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin.

A key factor that facilitated the creation of the Canadian Judicial Council was the case of Justice Landreville. He was charged with a criminal offence. Those charges were dismissed, but allegations of impropriety continued to be made by some. This gave rise to quite a bit of public debate; some in the legal profession criticized the fact that the judge was still sitting. A Committee of the Law Society, despite not having jurisdiction over a federally appointed judge, produced a negative report without even notifying Landreville of its proceedings.

There being no defined process to formally inquire into the conduct of a judge, the government then constituted a one-man Royal Commission headed by former Supreme Court Justice Ivan Rand. In his report, Rand found some improprieties and was critical of Justice Landreville. However, some said Mr Rand was biased and famous constitutional lawyer J.J. Robinette who represented Justice Landreville before the Commission was seriously critical of the process.

After the Rand report became public, a joint Committee of Parliament eventually recommended the judges removal and he resigned.

There were many who came to a view that the process which had been followed was flawed: the absence of a process defined in legislation to review the conduct of a judge left too much room for review by the law societies, government or Parliament, of even other bodies without necessarily involving the judiciary.

Professor William Kaplan, in his book Bad Judgment, wrote that Without a doubt, the Landreville case figured prominently in the decision to establish the Canadian Judicial Council. He quotes the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice who spoke during second reading of the Bill that created the Canadian Judicial Council: Because the independence of the judiciary is an integral part of the Canadian democratic process, it is important that the judiciary become, to some extent, a self-disciplinary body. (Kaplan, p. 194)

There is no doubt that the awkwardness and uncertainty of the Landreville proceeding was a factor motivating Parliament to adopt this new procedure. (Martin Friedland, A Place Apart: Judicial Independence and Accountability in Canada, 1995, p. 88).

Any member of the public can make a complaint to the Canadian Judicial Council provided the complaint is about judicial conduct, is made in writing, and is about a specific federally appointed judge, the Canadian Judicial Council and Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin will review the matter.

Although the Minister of Justice or a provincial Attorney General can initiate a formal inquiry about a federally appointed judge, most complaints come from the general public.

If a provincial Attorney General or the Minister of Justice of Canada submits a complaint, the Canadian Judicial Council and Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin must appoint an Inquiry Committee to consider whether a recommendation should be made to the Minister of Justice to remove the judge from office. The Inquiry Committee must hold a hearing, normally in public. The Canadian Judicial Council then considers the report of the Inquiry Committee and makes a recommendation to the Minister of Justice.

In accordance with the complaints process, the Canadian Judicial Council and Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin also initiate an inquiry into a judges conduct.


Canadian Judicial Council Logo
Evidence 1 | Evidence 2 | Evidence 3 | Evidence 4 | Evidence 5 | Evidence 6 | Evidence 7 | Evidence 8 | Evidence 9 | Evidence 10 | Evidence 11
Evidence 12 | Evidence 13 | Evidence 14
Home | Canadian Judicial Council | Universal Basic Income | Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin | External Website Links | Must Watch Video | Democrocy Code of Canada | News Media | RCMP Assault | War Measures Act Explained | Contact Us
Email: info@canadianjudicialcouncil.com
https://canadianjudicialcouncil.com
Copyright © 2002 - 2022 all rights reserved.