Delays, a donation and an ostrich cull: Here are some of the 1,400 complaints against judges last year
OTTAWA — Waiting 14 months to correct an overly long jail sentence, making a political donation while on the bench, excessive delays before issuing a decision and allowing the cull of the now-famous B.C. ostrich herd. Those are just some of the nearly 1,400 complaints filed against federally appointed judges last year.
This week, the Canadian Judicial Council (CJC) published its roundup of complaints against superior, appellate and federal court judges in 2025.
The annual report, the second of its kind since the government updated the judicial conduct regime in 2023, shows a notable uptick in complaints year over year.
In 2025, the CJC received 1,399 complaints against federally appointed judges, a 42 per cent increase from the previous year (985). Of that number, 974 were closed that year, with nearly all of them being dismissed.
The CJC has the power to review complaints involving a judge’s conduct, such as allegations of judicial misconduct, bias or discrimination. It cannot review a magistrate’s ruling or issues that related to a judge’s discretion in managing their case and courtroom.
CJC spokesperson Krista Ferraro said the increase in complaints in 2025 could be due in part to increased awareness of the complaint system since it was reformed nearly three years ago.
“The increase in complaints therefore does not necessarily reflect an increase in problematic behaviour amongst federally appointed judges,” Ferraro said.
She pointed out that, much like the previous year, the vast majority (912) of complaints closed in 2025 were dismissed after review by a screening officer because they were deemed frivolous, vexatious, made for an improper purpose or an abuse of process.
Another 50 complaints were dismissed at the second stage of review, whereas seven made their way to a three-person panel composed of a CJC member, a judge and a lay person who issued a punishment in all but one. The sanctions ranged from an “action of a private nature” to a “public reprimand,” the highest punishment short of recommending a judge’s removal from the bench.
Among the latter cases, a review panel issued a warning against Quebec Justice Bernard Tremblay after concluding he acted in an “imprudent and thoughtless manner” with numerous court employees.
“Justice Tremblay was in a position of authority and should have perceived, or at least paid attention to, the situations of discomfort and ambiguity that his behaviour created,” reads the decision, adding that Tremblay “demonstrated a problematic, even disturbing, progression in his interactions” with two of the unnamed complainants.
A review panel went further in the case of Ontario Superior Court Justice Andrew Goodman, who admitted to waiting 14 months before admitting that he delivered the wrong prison sentence to Peter Khill for manslaughter.
By waiting so long to correct the record and amend the sentence from eight years to six, Goodman committed “injudicious conduct” that merited a public reprimand. To make things worse, Goodman had still not apologized to Khill at the time of the decision, so the panel ordered him to do so.
“This conduct is particularly serious and the amelioration of the reputation of the judiciary requires that the public see a clear and strong message of condemnation of Justice Goodman’s injudicious conduct,” reads the decision .
Goodman originally requested that a public hearing panel review the complaint before abandoning his request in late February .
In a third case reviewed by a panel, the members ultimately dismissed a complaint against Quebec Justice François Huot for telling murderer and rapist Marc-André Grenon that he was “spineless, cowardly, craven” who was “devoid of morality,” “sexually depraved” and made the judge “sick.”
Among the numerous cases dismissed at stage one, the report notes a complaint against a judge’s ruling in a case about a “government agency’s order to cull livestock.” The complainant, who was quickly dismissed, argued that the decision was “unjustifiable, unscientific, and represented an egregious abuse of power.”
Though not specified, the complaint is almost certainly linked to a ruling dismissing an attempt to block the Canadian Food Inspection Agency from culling a herd of ostriches who tested positive for avian flu at a farm in B.C.
“The complainant was advised that the Council could only review matters of judicial conduct, not decision-making,” reads the report.
The majority of the complaints that proceeded to the second stage of review were also dismissed after being deemed unfounded. Though a handful were set aside only after the judge admitted to not meeting expectations.
In one case, a complainant made a series of allegations of unethical behaviour against a judge, including that the judge had made a political donation in 2013.
While most were unproven, the report says that the judge originally denied having made the donation — which is verboten under the CJC’s ethical guidelines — before their own tax records appeared to prove them wrong.
“Regarding the allegation of a political donation, the judge stated that they had not made a donation, and that they had only become aware of it when they reviewed their income tax files,” reads the report, which says that the complaint was dismissed.
In other cases, some judges who delayed issuing reasons due to health problems apologized to complainants, leading to the complaint being dismissed.
In one case where a litigator complained that an unnamed judge had far exceeded the recommended six-month timeline to issue a decision in two matters, the magistrate admitted to the fault and revealed that they were dealing with undisclosed health issues.
“The Chief Justice and Associate Chief Justice of the court… described the issue of outstanding judgments as a serious institutional concern. They also expressed some dismay at the judge’s decision not to inform them of their personal and medical challenges,” reads the decision.
Despite finding that the judge had “failed to meet expectations,” the member reviewing the complaint found it “would not be in the public interest and contrary to the administration of justice to refer the complaint to a review panel” and dismissed it.
National Post
cnardi@postmedia.com
Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark nationalpost.com and sign up for our politics newsletter, First Reading, here.