Open this photo in gallery:
A pedestrian passes in front of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Toronto, on May 28.Wa Lone/Reuters
A Toronto law firm is claiming the process to review alleged misconduct by judges under the Canadian Judicial Council is inadequate and has filed a court challenge against the federal government.
The case brought by Breana Vandebeek, a partner at Gorham Vandebeek LLP, alleges there are “abusive outliers” among federally appointed judges. The law firm claims this includes judges who harass litigants, needlessly complicate and protract litigation, and contribute to miscarriages of justice.
The allegations have not been tested in court. The case is in the early stages at the Superior Court of Justice in Ontario, where both the law firm and the Judicial Council are based.
The court challenge against the federal government over how complaints against judges are handled is rooted in the spring of 2025. It was then, according to court filings, that lawyer Nathan Gorham of Gorham Vandebeek filed complaints about three judges on the New Brunswick Court of King’s Bench to the Canadian Judicial Council.
The Judicial Council in March told Mr. Gorham that the complaint against one New Brunswick judge, Justice Frederick Ferguson, had been referred to a hearing panel but the complaints against the other two, Justice Darrell Stephenson and Justice Thomas Christie, had been dismissed.
The Judicial Council is comprised of top judges across Canada and controls the policing of judicial conduct.
The court challenge in Ontario alleges the Judicial Council review process “violates the fair hearing principle” and contravenes Section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which protects the right to life, liberty and security of the person.
“Once on the bench, the outlier [judge] faces little accountability, in part because the disciplinary process under the Canadian Judicial Council is ineffective, secretive and unfair,” Mr. Gorham alleges in the Ontario court challenge.
The Judicial Council has applied to intervene in the Ontario case. In a July 15 court filing, it had also requested a sealing order of “any materials related to dismissed CJC complaints or complaints that are currently before the CJC.”
If that sealing order was granted, much of the potential evidence would not be public. But in a filing late Monday the Judicial Council indicated it isn’t planning to immediately argue in court for the sealing order.
A hearing at the Ontario Superior Court is scheduled on Tuesday in Toronto. It will consider the Judicial Council’s standing as an intervener and plans for case logistics.
The allegations against the New Brunswick judges include: Justice Ferguson pulling aside a Gorham Vandebeek lawyer in a private meeting to question him about privileged information; Justice Stephenson suggesting he would order the arrest of a Gorham Vandebeek lawyer; and Justice Christie’s violations of procedural fairness during a murder trial, such as the reading of a formal judgment for which he had not provided notice.
In a statement on Monday, Chief Justice Tracey DeWare of the New Brunswick Court of King’s Bench said the three judges on her court have fully co-operated with the Judicial Council and “followed the complaints procedures of the Canadian Judicial Council in the matters referenced” in the Ontario court case.
The challenge at the Ontario Superior Court started in early June with a notice of a constitutional question and application, including the alleged violation of Section 7 of the Charter.
Stéphanie Bachand, director and general counsel at the Judicial Council, in an affidavit described the Charter violation put forth by Ms. Vandebeek as a “bald allegation” and stated: “The applicant has failed to plead any basis on which their own security of the person or life or liberty is engaged, let alone infringed.”
Mr. Gorham, in a court filing that responded to the council’s proposed sealing order, argued the public has a strong interest “in understanding what transpired.”
“After receiving credible complaints of serious abuse, including malicious interference with counsel, the CJC failed to investigate, failed to ensure a fair hearing, and failed to concern itself with objective truth,” Mr. Gorham wrote.
The federal Justice Department declined comment because the case is in court. The Judicial Council, in a statement on Monday, said its work is based on “transparency, the public interest, and judicial independence.”
Parliament created the Judicial Council in 1971 to oversee federally appointed judges. According to the council’s website, it provides a “forum to which any Canadian can turn if they feel aggrieved by the misconduct of a judge.”
There are 44 Judicial Council members, all the chief justices and associate chief justices on courts across Canada. These top judges adjudicate their peers’ alleged misconduct. The council website states judges are expected to adhere to “irreproachable behaviour.”
Complaints start with a screening by a council staffer. The council dismisses about two-thirds of complaints at this first stage, according to its 2025 annual report.
After a complaint is screened, it moves to a second stage, a review by a council member, one of Canada’s most senior judges. At this stage, the judge either dismisses the complaint against a fellow judge or moves it onward to a review panel.
A review panel includes a council member, a superior court judge not on the council and a layperson. This panel can impose a range of sanctions and can also move the complaint to a full hearing panel if the allegations are serious enough to merit a judge’s removal from the bench. Other various procedures include an impugned judge’s ability to appeal.
The Judicial Council website includes nine review panel decisions from mid-2024 through to mid-2025. The 2025 annual report also includes 45 brief summaries of cases closed by a judge at the second stage.
There has been a long-standing debate over how complaints against judges should best be handled.
In 2023, the federal government revamped the council’s review process.
Research from the Dalhousie University law school in 2024 stated that “a crisis of legitimacy” had overtaken the Judicial Council by the early 2020s, and the 2023 changes were Ottawa’s response. But professors Richard Devlin and Sheila Wildeman argue that while Ottawa’s changes produced some improvements, the 2023 legislation in general “reveals a failure of nerve on the part of its proponents.”
The professors concluded the 2023 changes are “unlikely to generate the improved public confidence that is central to the legitimacy of the Canadian judiciary as a democratic institution.”