The First Step To Judicial Independence - Reform the Office of the Chief Justice.

Justice John C. Bouck

In his landmark exposee of the role of the Chief Judge or Chief Justice in Canada's various courts, John C. Bouck, a courageous Canadian judge, appealed directly to the public for reform in 1998 with a series of articles appearing in a prominent Canadian newspaper.

Justice Bouck candidly explained that the court system operated like a hockey team.  The Chief Judge, like the hockey coach who decided which players get to play in the game, decided which judges would hear certain cases.  Bouck wrote that there "A- Team" of key players or judges who were favoured by the Chief Justice and "B-Team" of less reliable judges or players.

Bouck wrote that judges from the A-Team were selected by the Chief Justice to handle certain the Chief Justice felt were important while judges from the B-Team were given cases that had no or little importance.  

What Bouck did not write  but what arises as the natural implication from his comments was that the Chief Justice was controlling the outcome of various law cases by the selection of judges he or she could rely on to deliver the verdict that the Chief Justice wished to have delivered.

The implicit conclusion that Chief Justices in Canada manage the outcome of certain law cases is supported by the available data gleaned from many key law cases where certain judges in Canada are regularly observed appearing in certain key cases and then twisting, perverting, bending and breaking the law in order to obtain a certain result. 

Bouck reasoned that one simple way to reform the process was to reform the position of Chief Justice or Chief Judge.

In the case of Canada's superior courts, which include the Supreme Court of Canada, the Federal Court of Appeal, the Federal Court, the Courts of Appeal and superior courts for all Canadian provinces and territories the Chief Justices in Canada are chosen for their positions by the Prime Minister of Canada and his cabinet with the approval of the Queen or Governor General and they hold that position until they resign or retire.  The retirement age is fixed at age 75 by the Judges Act and Chief Justices in Canada often hold the office for ten years or more giveing rise to complaints of  cronyism and other forms of corruption.

In the case of Provincal Courts, the Chief Judge is appointed by the local provincial Premier and her cabinet with the approval of the Queen's representaitve the Lieutenant Governor.

Bouck aregued that this was wrong.

Bouck argued that the best people to select a Chief Justice was not a politcian who knew nothing about managing a court but instead the judges of the court shold elect one of their members whom they respected and felt was capable and fit for the job, just like a hockey team elects its captain, like the House of Commons elects its speaker or like the Cardinals of Catholic Church elects its Pope.

Bouck also argued that the term of office should be fixed which would enable the judges of the court to control egomaniacal despots from taking over thge system.  Bouck suggested a terms of five years would be reasonable.

The Canadian Committee for Constitutional Courts has carefully reviewed the proposals of Justice John Bouck and advocates that those proposals be adopted, immediately, as a first step towards the establishment of a court system that complies with the requirements of Canadai's Constitution and the provisions of the United Nations Univeral Declaration of Human Rights and the United Nations Covenant on Political and Civil Rights that mandate an independent and impartial tribunal for the hearing of civil and criminal disputes.

For Chief Justices appointed by the Prime Minister of Canada and his cabinet this would require an appropriate amendment to the Judges Act which sets out the mandatory retirement ages for such judges.

In the case of Provincial Court Chief Judges, a similar amendment would have to be made to the applicable legislation. 

What Justice Bouck did not address was the role the the of the Chief Justice or Chief Judge in matters involving complaints of judicial misconduct.

At the present time, the Chief Justice of Canada, who is also the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, is the Chairperson of the Canadian Judicial Council, a body made up solely of Chief Justices and Associate Chief Justices of Canada's superior courts and courts of appeal. The Canadian Judicial  Council is charged with the responsibility of investigating complaints of mis-conduct by Canada's federally appointed judges.  The obvious problem is that where a Chief Justice selects a member of his "A-Team" of judges to deliver a desired verdict that Chief Justice will naturally use his or her influence to make sure that complaints about judges involved in such verdicts are nre not treated seriously or are rejected on improper grounds.  There are so many well documented cases where this has taken place that Canadians no longer trust the Canadian judiciary as they once did before the Canadian Judicial Council was established in by Canada's, self admitted, communist Prime Minister, Pierre Trudeau, as part of his long term strategy to turn Canada over to the international elites that intend to establish a one world government controlled by a self-selected oligarchs. 

The Canadian Committee for Constitioional Courts submits that a proper reform of the office of the Chief Justice would require a reform of the system that reviews judicial mis-conduct.  Chief Justices should be completely removed from the process of examining and investigating complaints of judicial misconduct except in cases where their evidence is required to assist a hearing panel in their deliberations.