Canadian Judicial Council - 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

Kamloops B.C. Supreme Court Justice Richard Blair

Canadian Judicial Council - Canadian Judicial Council

A Government accepted judicial standard permitting a judge to make serious fraudulent allegations that fail to appear anywhere within the evidence and have dinner with witnesses. Acceptance by the Prime Minister's office, Ministry of Justice and Chief Justice of Canada.	Dr. Philip Anthony White getting paid for the same attendance Judge Blair alleged to never happened is fraud. Fraud is claimed on an alleged consent.	The Justice Ministry of Canada within a letter states "With regard to your concerns with the court decisions being available on the Internet, I would like to point out that all court decisions have always been a matter of public record in Canada. This aspect of our judicial system is seen as a safeguard to fairness, openness, and democracy."
The Prime Ministers office within a letter states "While careful consideration has been given to your description of the difficulties you have experienced, this office is unable to intervene in any way in this situation."	The Canadian Judicial Council within a letter states "Associate Chief Justice Osborne has asked me to advise you that there is no basis for your allegations on the part of Justice Blair."	The Canadian Judicial Council within a letter states "Please be advised that any further correspondence in this matter will remain without reply and will simply be filed."
The Canadian Judicial Council within a letter states "In the circumstances, as there is no basis for any further action by the Council pursuant to its mandate under the Judges Act, Associate Chief Justice Osborne has directed me to close the file with this reply."	The Canadian Judicial Council within a letter states "Please be advised that any further correspondence in this matter will remain without reply and will be simply filed."	The Justice Ministry of Canada within a letter states "I sympathize with the distress you have been experiencing. However, I must tell you that it would be inappropriate for me to comment on the particulars of this case."
The Canadian Judicial Council within a letter states "Your allegation that the judge did not permit the examination of witnesses cannot be sustained since this was a summary trial and not a trial."	The Canadian Judicial Council within a letter states "The issue of Mr. Justice Blair"s acquaintance with the doctor was raised before the Court of Appeal which found that such a ground had no chance of success in that court."	The Justice Ministry within a letter states "Thank you again for writing. I regret that I am unable to help you in the way that you may have perhaps hoped"

It is possible that this Internet Web Site may lead to more questions, some letters and documents may not appear, this is unavoidable but may be another reason why a formal examination into Justice Richard Blair should have been provided to this family in the first place. In most cases it would be Justice Blair very inability to provide thoughtful, logical answers to only a very few questions that would prove his application of evidence is unsupported. It is the intention of this Internet web site to only present relevant documents that may assist in proving fraud and corruption within Justice Blair's judgement. The intention is to make the presentation of this evidence as simple as possible to understand.

This Internet web-site is not intended to debate any of the evidence. It is not to detail private health related evidence although it should be noted that the legal council appearing for the doctors openly told the court that they had no dispute with the facts regarding health issues, pain and swelling. Many.. Many years have past already.. the same health issues continue today.

It is not intended to be a debate on the merits of any disagreement with the Canadian Judicial Council, Canadian Government, Prime Minister's office, Justice Minister's office and Chief Justice of Canada Beverley McLachlin relating to them preventing an examination into evidence. This is intended to present the facts relating to the accepted standard set by the Government of Canada as it relates to the conduct of Federally Appointed Supreme Court Judges. Judges the Government appoints. Equality under Canadian Law.

In simple terms by preventing the need for a formal hearing into Justice Blair's fraud, total lack of credibility and involvement with evidence the Canadian Government and Canadian Judicial Council have set a precedent that provides the ability for a constructive application and constructive elimination of legitimate evidence, exclusion of evidence that provides for benefit to judges friends and unlawful claims within future judgements. This here provides the Canadian precedent for a judge to allege fact not presented as evidence. Fraud is claimed.

Fraud, Judgement Construction and a total lack of credibility is claimed on the part of Kamloops Justice Richard Blair. This family is not willing to accept the current and any further unsupported, fraudulent allegations. The Government of Canada did not request Judge Blair produce his alleged evidence nor explain. The Canadian Judicial Council failed to ask Judge Blair produce his alleged evidence nor explain.

Email: info@canadianjudicialcouncil.com
https://canadianjudicialcouncil.com
Copyright © 2002 - 2022 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 Mclachlinof 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, Canadas 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 Mchlachlin 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.