Justice Robin Camp was appointed as a judge of the Federal Court in June 2015. Before his appointment to the Federal Court, he was a judge of the Provincial Court of Alberta (Criminal Division), to which he was appointed in March 2012.[1]

 Overview

While a judge of the Provincial Court, Justice Camp presided over the trial of R. v. Wagar in which an accused was charged with sexual assault (the “trial”). Justice Camp acquitted the accused, and the trial verdict was overturned on appeal by the Alberta Court of Appeal and a new trial was ordered.[2]

An inquiry was convened as a result of a complaint from the Minister of Justice and Solicitor General for Alberta[3] to the Canadian Judicial Council concerning Justice Camp’s conduct during the trial and inappropriate statements in his written Reasons for Judgment. The Canadian Judicial Council appointed a five member Inquiry Committee pursuant to the Judges Act to conduct an investigation and inquiry into the conduct of Justice Camp.[4]

Pursuant to the Judges Act, the Inquiry Committee’s investigation sought to determine whether Justice Camp committed misconduct[5] and/or placed himself by his conduct in a position incompatible with the due execution of the office of judge,[6] and if so, whether “public confidence is sufficiently undermined to render Justice Camp incapable of executing the judicial office”.[7]

A judge who asked a woman why she didn’t just “keep your knees together” while presiding over a sexual assault trial should be removed from the bench, according to a unanimous ruling from an inquiry committee formed by the Canadian Judicial Council.

– Tamara Khandaker, Business Insider headline [8]

The inquiry hearing took place over five days between September 6 and 12, 2016.[9] On November 29, 2016, the Inquiry Committee released its “Report and Recommendation to the Canadian Judicial Council” whereby it expressed its “unanimous view that a recommendation by the Judicial Council for Justice Camp’s removal is warranted.” The Inquiry Committee concluded that Justice Camp’s conduct “was so manifestly and profoundly destructive of the concept of the impartiality, integrity and independence of the judicial role that public confidence is sufficiently undermined to render the Judge incapable of executing the judicial office.”[10]  The Inquiry Committee found that Justice Camp “committed misconduct while presiding over the sexual assault trial in R. v. Wagar and placed himself, by his conduct, in a position incompatible with the due execution of the office of judge within the meaning of paragraphs 65(2)(b) and (d) of the Judges Act.”[11]

The Inquiry Committee found that throughout the trial, “Justice Camp made comments or asked questions evidencing an antipathy towards laws designed to protect vulnerable witnesses, promote equality, and bring integrity to sexual assault trials”, and “relied on discredited myths and stereotypes about women and victim blaming during the trial and in his reasons for judgment.” The Inquiry Committee noted the following in its “Report and Recommendation to the Canadian Judicial Council”:[12]

• Justice Camp asked the complainant at trial: “Why couldn’t you just keep your knees together?”. This point “was repeated in his [written] Reasons for Judgement”.
• Justice Camp suggested or implied during the trial that the complainant — who was allegedly raped on a bathroom sink — could have prevented the attack by “sinking her bottom down into the basin.”
• Justice Camp’s comments about the accuser keeping her knees together and sinking her bottom down into the basin “implied rebukes to the complainant for not resisting.”
• Justice Camp stated that “sometimes sex and pain go together … that’s not necessarily a bad thing.”
• Justice Camp stated that “sex is very often a challenge.”
• Justice Camp stated that he didn’t “believe there’s any talk of an attack really”.
• Justice Camp stated that “there is no real talk of real force … it just means that the accused [sic: complainant] hasn’t explained why she allowed the sex to happen if she didn’t want it”.
• Read in context, a reasonable person would interpret Justice Camp’s remarks as belittling and trivializing what the complainant alleged happened in the bathroom, and reflected a victim-blaming attitude and the discredited myth that women who do not actively resist are consenting.
• Justice Camp’s remarks to the female prosecutor at the trial expressed a view that Canadian sex-assault law meant to protect victims from rape myths and stereotypes was wrong-headed and would some day change. “His comments [were] reasonably understood as being disparaging of legislative attempts to remove discredited myths from sexual assault law.”

During his evidence at the Inquiry hearing, Justice Camp admitted, in response to a question from one of the Inquiry Committee members, that his comments were more than merely insensitive; they were “disgraceful”, “appalling” and “outrageous”.[13]

The gravity of Justice Camp’s misconduct was a crucial issue for the Committee as the “misconduct alleged and demonstrated must be of sufficient gravity to justify interference with the sanctity of judicial independence”. On all the evidence, for the Inquiry Committee this case met the high threshold for removal.[14]

We conclude that Justice Camp’s conduct is so manifestly and profoundly destructive of the concept of the impartiality, integrity and independence of the judicial role that public confidence is sufficiently undermined to render the judge incapable of executing the judicial office.

– Report and Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee to the Canadian Judicial Council[15]

The Inquiry Committee found that a judge who uses their role in a criminal trial to denigrate values he or she should respect, commits serious and significant misconduct. A judge must be held accountable for the effects of his or her misconduct on those who appear before them, and on the public which entrusts them with the task of fairly and impartially applying the law.[16]

The Canadian Judicial Council[17] – made up of 39 members who are the chief justices, associate chief justices, and some senior judges from provincial and federal courts across Canada – will consider the Inquiry Committee’s report and recommendation in a full Judicial Council, after giving Judge Camp an opportunity to make written submissions.  At that point, upon due consideration of the report of the Inquiry Committee and written submissions of Judge Camp (if any), the full Judicial Council will make a decision. The Judicial Council may recommend to Parliament (through the Minister of Justice of Canada) that the judge be removed from office.  Alternatively, although unlikely, the Judicial Council may limit itself to only expressing concerns about Judge Camp’s conduct if it is determined the matter is not serious enough to recommend that the judge be removed.[18]

The Canadian Judicial Council’s only power is to recommend to Parliament that a judge be removed from office.[19] Canada’s Parliament has never had to face such a situation.[20] Since the Judicial Committee was formed in 1971, the Council has only recommended the removal of two judges, both of whom stepped down before the question was brought to a vote in the House of Commons and the Senate.[21]

The Judicial Function and Complaints about the conduct of Judges: Public Confidence and Respect for Judiciary essential to effective judicial system and rule of law

Justice Camp’s misconduct was found by the Inquiry Committee to be manifestly serious, causing significant harm to public confidence in the judicial role.  A daunting concern is that the conduct and comments of Justice Camp “threatened the integrity of the judiciary as a whole”, thereby undermining “public confidence in and respect for the judiciary” – these principles being essential “to an effective judicial system and, ultimately, to democracy founded on the rule of law”.[22]

Our society assigns important powers and responsibilities to the members of its judiciary.  Apart from the traditional role of an arbiter which settles disputes and adjudicates between the rights of the parties, judges are also responsible for preserving the balance of constitutional powers between the two levels of government in our federal state.  Furthermore, under the Canadian Charter, they have become one of the foremost defenders of individual freedoms and human rights and guardians of the values it embodies.[23]

The judge is the pillar of our entire justice system, and of the rights and freedoms which that system is designed to promote and protect. Thus, to the public, judges not only swear by taking their oath to serve the ideals of Justice and Truth on which the rule of law in Canada and the foundations of our democracy are built, but they are asked to embody them.

– Justice Gonthier, Supreme Court of Canada[24]

The personal qualities, conduct, and image that a judge projects affect those of the judicial system as a whole and, therefore, the confidence that the public places in it. Maintaining confidence on the part of the public in its justice system ensures its effectiveness and proper functioning. But beyond that, public confidence promotes the general welfare and social peace by maintaining the rule of law.[25]

Complaints about the conduct of judges in court in the course of a trial, appeal or other proceeding raise difficult issues. There is a tension between protecting judicial independence – which exists to safeguard the impartiality of our courts – and ensuring accountability for judicial misconduct. Judges must have considerable latitude to conduct proceedings, to comment on the evidence, to pose questions of witnesses and counsel, and sometimes to criticize the law. However, there will unavoidably be occasions where a judges actions will be called into question, and this restraint on judicial independence is required based on “the values of justice and the integrity of the justice system”.[26]

Public confidence in and respect for the judiciary are essential to an effective judicial system and, ultimately, to democracy founded on the rule of law.

– Justice Gonthier, Supreme Court of Canada, 2001[27]

How Justice Camp was Appointed to Bench

The Honourable Robin Camp (“Justice Camp” or the “Judge”) was appointed as a judge of the Federal Court in June 2015. Before his appointment to the Federal Court, he was a judge of the Provincial Court of Alberta, to which he was appointed in March 2012.[28]

Provincial Court of Alberta (Criminal Division) – Appointment by Premier Redford’s Provincial Government in March 2012

Justice Camp was originally appointed to the Provincial Court of Alberta (Criminal Division) in March 2012 by the conservative provincial government of Premier Alison Redford.[29] His experience in criminal law was limited, and specifically described at the Inquiry Hearing as “quite restricted”.[30] The Criminal trial court handles first appearances, entry of pleas, bail hearings, preliminary inquiries and the trials and sentencing of all summary convictions and the majority of Criminal Code indictable offences.[31]

Prior to his appointment to the Provincial Court, Judge Camp worked at the Calgary law firm Jensen Shawa Solomon Duguid Hawkes LLP (JSS Barristers), and was the managing partner from 2008 to 2012 practicing primarily in the area of commercial or business litigation.[32] At that time, Judge Camp was also on the board of directors of the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms. This group – located in Calgary, Alberta –  describes itself on its website as being concerned about the erosion of freedom and equality “by governments and by government-funded and government-created entities like Canada’s public universities and human rights commissions”. The quote on the organization’s web page references that “a small group of thoughtful, committed people can change the world”.[33]

Judge Camp’s partner at his law firm was then conservative Premier Alison Redford’s ex-husband, Robert Hawkes, who also led Premier Redford’s 2011 transition team.[34]

Federal Court – Appointment by Prime Minister Harper’s Federal Government in June 2015

On June 26, 2015, then justice minister Peter MacKay, on behalf of the conservative federal government chose to appoint Judge Camp to the Federal Court.[35]  With respect to Judge Camp’s promotion to the Federal Court, two law professors stated:[36]

“Fortunately, Judge Camp will not be presiding over any more sexual-assault trials. He was appointed to the Federal Court as part of the final pre-election rash of Conservative appointments. He will, however, be responsible for hearing the claims of women who seek refuge in Canada to escape sexual violence in their countries of origin.”

Sexual Assault Trial in June 2014 and Appeal in October 2015

The alleged misconduct of Justice Camp arose from statements that he made in the Wagar Trial, in which Alexander Wagar was tried for sexual assault. On June 5, 2014, the trial began and it lasted three days. At the conclusion of the Trial, Justice Camp acquitted Mr. Wagar of sexual assault.[37]

In the course of the trial and in rendering his written Reasons for Judgment, Justice Camp’s conduct and comments formed the subject matter of the inquiry.[38]

Without repeating the above, by way of brief summary, at the sexual assault trial as the Provincial Court Judge, Court transcripts show Judge Robin Camp called the complainant “the accused” throughout the trial, suggested her attempts to fend off her alleged attacker were feeble, and asked her “why couldn’t you just keep your knees together?” He also told her “pain and sex sometimes go together,”[39] and asked the homeless 19-year-old complainant why, if she had truly not consented, did she not sink her bottom into the basin in which the act took place.[40] Judge Camp also made inappropriate comments on the state of the law to the female Crown Attorney prosecuting the case before him.[41]

Judge Camp acquitted the accused, Alexander Wagar, but the trial verdict was immediately overturned on appeal and a new trial was ordered.[42] The Alberta Court of Appeal overturned Judge Camp’s trial decision on October 27, 2015, stating as follows:[43]

“[4] Having read the Crown’s factum, portions of the trial transcript and having heard Crown counsel’s arguments, we are satisfied that the trial judge’s comments throughout the proceedings and in his reasons gave rise to doubts about the trial judge’s understanding of the law governing sexual assaults and in particular, the meaning of consent and restrictions on evidence of the complainant’s sexual activity imposed by section 276 of the Criminal Code. We are also persuaded that sexual stereotypes and stereotypical myths, which have long since been discredited, may have found their way into the trial judge’s judgment. There were also instances where the trial judge misapprehended the evidence.

[5] We are cognizant that the Crown is limited to appeals on questions of law alone. However, we are of the view that the conduct of the trial and the trial judge’s reasons disclose errors of law and therefore we allow the appeal and order a new trial.”

Testimony in the R. v. Wagar sexual assault retrial ended in November 2016, and a decision is expected on or about January 31, 2017.[44]

Complaints Filed with Canadian Judicial Counsel re Judge Camp’s Conduct

In the wake of the Court of Appeal’s decision overturning Judge Camp’s trial decision, on November 9, 2015, four law professors filed a complaint (the “Professors’ Complaint”) with the Canadian Judicial Council. Many other complaints relating to the Judge’s conduct from members of the public, other law professors, and law students, were also sent to the Judicial Council.  There was extensive media coverage of the complaints against the Judge.[45]

Before the Canadian Judicial Council could determine whether the Professors’ Complaint should be referred to an inquiry, on December 22, 2015, the Minister of Justice and Solicitor General for Alberta[46] made a complaint and request under s. 63(1) of the Judges Act, triggering the inquiry into the Judge’s conduct in the sexual assault Trial.[47]

Canadian Judicial Council’s Inquiry Committee: The Inquiry into Justice Camp’s Conduct and Comments

As noted, the Honourable Robin Camp was appointed as a judge of the Federal Court in June 2015. Before his appointment to the Federal Court, he was a judge of the Provincial Court of Alberta, to which he was appointed in March 2012.  While a judge of the Provincial Court, Justice Camp presided over the Wagar trial in which the accused was charged with sexual assault. Justice Camp heard evidence and submissions on three separate days over a period of two months. A month after the trial, Justice Camp delivered written Reasons for Judgment acquitting the accused of sexual assault. The acquittal was overturned by the Alberta Court of Appeal, having found that Justice Camp’s conduct of the trial and his Reasons for Judgment disclosed errors of law.[48]

Pursuant to s. 63 (1) and (2) of the Judges Act,[49] the inquiry into Judge Camp was convened as a result of a complaint and request from the Minister of Justice and Solicitor General for Alberta to the Canadian Judicial Council concerning the Judge’s conduct and statements during the trial, and statements in his written Reasons for Judgment. The inquiry hearing took place over five days between September 6 and 12, 2016.[50]

Pursuant to the Judges Act, the Inquiry Committee’s investigation sought to determine whether Justice Camp committed misconduct[51] and/or placed himself by his conduct in a position incompatible with the due execution of the office of judge,[52] and if so, whether “public confidence is sufficiently undermined to render Justice Camp incapable of executing the judicial office”.[53]  The “test for removal of a judge” was stated as follows:[54]

“Is the conduct alleged so manifestly and profoundly destructive of the concept of the impartiality, integrity and independence of the judicial role, that public confidence would be sufficiently undermined to render the judge incapable of executing the judicial office?”

The test is prospective, namely whether “public confidence in the judge is sufficiently undermined to render him or her incapable of executing judicial office in the future in light of his or her conduct to date”. The test is also objective, to be considered from the perspective of a reasonable and well-informed person.[55]

It should be clear, the focus of the inquiry was not to address whether Justice Camp was right or wrong to acquit the accused, or whether Justice Camp made legal errors in the conduct of the trial – that is addressed in the normal course by way of appeal. Legal errors, without more, do not and must not amount to “misconduct” as referenced in the Judges Act. For the benefit of society and the rule of law, Judges must have considerable latitude to conduct proceedings, to comment on the evidence, to pose questions of witnesses and counsel, and sometimes to criticize the law.[56]

The inquiry focused solely on whether Justice Camp’s conduct during the Trial was contrary to the Judges Act,[57] noting:[58]

• Justice Camp asked the complainant several questions during that trial that he later apologized for, including: “Why couldn’t you just keep your knees together?”. This point “was repeated in his [written] Reasons for Judgement a month after those remarks were originally made” during the trial.
• Justice Camp suggested or implied during the trial that the complainant — who was allegedly raped on a bathroom sink — could have prevented the attack by “sinking her bottom down into the basin.”
• Justice Camp’s comments about the accuser keeping her knees together and sinking her bottom down into the basin “implied rebukes to the complainant for not resisting.”
• Justice Camp stated that “sometimes sex and pain go together… that’s not necessarily a bad thing.”
• Justice Camp stated that “sex is very often a challenge.”
• Justice Camp stated that he didn’t “believe there’s any talk of an attack really”.
• Justice Camp stated that “there is no real talk of real force … it just means that the accused [sic: complainant] hasn’t explained why she allowed the sex to happen if she didn’t want it”.
• Read in context, a reasonable person would interpret Justice Camp’s remarks as belittling and trivializing what the complainant alleged happened in the bathroom, and also reflected a victim-blaming attitude and the discredited myth that women who do not actively resist are consenting.
• Justice Camp’s remarks to the female prosecutor at the trial expressed a view that Canadian sex-assault law meant to protect victims from rape myths and stereotypes was wrong-headed and would some day change. “His comments [were] reasonably understood as being disparaging of legislative attempts to remove discredited myths from sexual assault law.”

On the evidence and record, the Inquiry Committee made the following specific findings with respect to Mr. Justice Robin Camp:[59]

• Justice Camp displayed and evidenced “an antipathy towards laws designed to protect vulnerable witnesses, promote equality, and bring integrity to sexual assault trials.”
• Justice Camp “relied on discredited myths and stereotypes about women and victim blaming during the trial and in his [written] Reasons for Judgment.”
• Justice Camp’s conduct was “so manifestly and profoundly destructive of the concept of the impartiality, integrity and independence of the judicial role that public confidence is sufficiently undermined to render the Judge incapable of executing the judicial office”.
• Justice Camp “committed misconduct and placed himself, by his conduct, in a position incompatible with the due execution of the office of judge” within the meaning of ss. 65(2)(b) [guilty of misconduct] and (d) [placed by his conduct in a position incompatible with the due execution of that office] of the Judges Act.

Accordingly, the Inquiry Committee expressed the unanimous view that a recommendation by the Canadian Judicial Council for Justice Camp’s removal is warranted.[60]

Justice Camp’s misconduct is manifestly serious. It caused significant harm to public confidence in the judicial role, in an area of the law in which the courts and Parliament have made concerted efforts to enhance public confidence over the past four decades.

– Report and Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee to the Canadian Judicial Council[61]

The gravity of Justice Camp’s misconduct was a crucial issue for the Committee as the “misconduct alleged and demonstrated must be of sufficient gravity to justify interference with the sanctity of judicial independence”. On all the evidence, for the Committee this case met the high threshold for removal.[62]

The impugned comments, in context, were not of the sort that need to be shielded from the actions of a Judicial Council – acting as a disciplinary authority – to preserve judicial independence, or to avoid curtailing judicial freedom of action. Judge Camp’s conduct and comments, had little or nothing to do with the issues facing the Judge in the trial. According to the Committee, the Judge’s conduct reflected “disdain for the careful development of the law through legislation and jurisprudence designed to bring balance and equality to a process that historically discriminated against women”.[63]

The Inquiry Committee found that in all the circumstances, the Judge’s defence and reliance on education and contrition as a prescription for maintaining his unique and privileged position in society as a judge must yield to a result that more resolutely pursues the goal of restoring public confidence in the integrity of the justice system.[64]  As much as education, including social context education, has a role to play in the shaping of an effective judge who lives up to his or her obligation to occupy “a place apart” from the rest of society and who conducts him or herself in a way that is beyond reproach, it is not the solution to all problems, nor to the specific problems identified in this case with Justice Camp.[65]

The Committee found that, “fundamentally, Justice Camp’s misconduct [was] rooted in a profound lack of impartiality and failure to respect equality before the law”, noting:[66]

[287] “… Justice Camp’s misconduct is not just about “remediable ignorance”, “knowledge deficits”, “unconscious bias”, or “insensitive and inappropriate” comments. Rather, it is a failure to grasp what is at the core of the judicial role: the imperative to act with impartiality and in a way that respects equality according to law. Sexual assault law and sexual assault trials are laden with concerns about gender equality, bias and discrimination. Justice Camp’s manifest failure to behave impartially and to demonstrate respect for equality in such a context, over a protracted period of time, has raised considerable public concern about how women who allege they have been sexually assaulted are treated in the judicial system.

[288] We conclude that when Justice Camp’s conduct is looked at in its totality and in light of its consequences, it would be fundamentally adverse to the preservation of public confidence in the impartiality, integrity and independence of the judicial role for the Judge to remain in office.

[289] When a judge displays disrespect or antipathy for the values that a law is designed to achieve or towards witnesses whose vulnerability is exposed, it encourages a similar disrespect or antipathy in others in the judicial system. Judges are not viewed simply as participants in the justice system. They are expected to be leaders of its ethos and exemplars of its values.”

During his testimony, it is reported that Justice Camp “generally acknowledged that he engaged in stereotypical or biased thinking”, and apologized for what he identified as his “unrecognized prejudices”, his “hurtful” comments, and that he “intimidated” the complainant.  A law professor is reported to have testified during the inquiry that Justice Camp didn’t know the history of sexual assault law in Canada and at times made “rude and stupid” comments during the trial, but said she believed he had learned from the experience. Justice Camp’s daughter is reported to have defended him in writing, on the basis that he is “old-fashioned in some ways” and that “there are gaps in his understanding of how women think and experience life,” but adding “he is not an inherent or dedicated sexist.”[67]

In the circumstances of this case, the Committee concluded that the Judge’s misconduct was not simply using inappropriate and insensitive words in exploring legitimate areas of inquiry. Rather, that his impugned questions and comments and his choice of words were rooted in his antipathy towards legislative and jurisprudential reforms designed to preserve the integrity of the justice system, foster women’s equality, and protect particularly vulnerable and often disadvantaged witnesses. Justice Camp’s misconduct was identified by the Committee as manifestly serious. The media attention given to Justice Camp’s comments, and the letters from members of the public to the Council, are evidence of the intense public concern provoked by his comments. During his evidence, Justice Camp admitted, in response to a question from one of the Committee members, that his comments were more than merely insensitive; they were “disgraceful”, “appalling” and “outrageous”.[68]

There is nothing to suggest that Justice Camp’s conduct and the attitude underlying it, had it not been arrested by the public reaction it provoked, would not have continued to exist….we conclude that the problem is a deeper one and lies in the Judge’s flawed approach to the judicial role itself.

– Report and Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee to the Canadian Judicial Council[69]

A Less Obvious, but Equally Significant Consequence

A less obvious, but equally significant consequence of misconduct of the nature at issue here is its prospective effect on the independence of the judiciary. Judges must feel free and be free to make unpopular decisions. Under our law, an accused charged with sexual assault has the same right to the presumption of innocence as any other accused. An accused charged with sexual assault has a right to be acquitted if the case against him is not proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Judges must deal with issues of the credibility and reliability of vulnerable complainants, just as they must deal with any other witnesses, and without fear of being labelled as sexist or gender-biased if they make adverse findings against the complainant and acquit an accused. Justice Camp’s conduct in the Wagar trial, in addition to eroding public confidence in the judiciary generally, renders it more difficult for judges to make credibility findings adverse to a complainant in a sexual assault prosecution without fear of facing complaints that they too are part of a system rife with bias.[70]

In other words, Justice Camp’s misconduct in the trial adds to the public perception that the justice system is fuelled by systemic bias and it therefore courts the risk that in other sexual assault cases, unpopular decisions will be unfairly viewed as animated by that bias, rather than by the application of legal principles and sound reasoning and analysis. In that way, Justice Camp’s misconduct erodes the independence of the judiciary, which is crucial to maintain in the face of the need, from time to time, to make decisions that are publicly unpopular but legally mandated.[71]

Conclusion

Part of the expertise of the Canadian Judicial Council  lies in its appreciation of the distinction between impugned judicial actions that can be dealt with in the traditional sense, through the normal appeal process, and those that may threaten the integrity of the judiciary as a whole, thus requiring intervention through the disciplinary provisions of the Judges Act.  The separation of functions between Judicial Councils and the actual courts, even if it could be said that their expertise is virtually identical, serves to insulate the courts, to some extent, from the reactions that may attach to an unpopular council decision.  To have disciplinary proceedings conducted by a judge’s peers offers the guarantees of expertise and fairness that judicial officers are sensitive to, while avoiding the potential perception of bias or conflict that could arise if judges were to sit in court regularly in judgment of each other.  As made clear by the Supreme Court of Canada in Therrien,[72] other judges may be the only people in a position to consider and weigh effectively all the applicable principles, and evaluation by any other group would threaten the perception of an independent judiciary.[73]

As noted by legal commentators, and two law professors in particular, “the protection of judicial independence demands restrained critique of judges. We want our judges empowered to make difficult and sometimes unpopular decisions. The Canadian Judicial Council is rightly cautious about sanctioning judges for what they say in particular cases. That said, there is a significant public interest in raising awareness about judicial attitudes and perspectives that are wildly out of sync with modern thinking and dramatically inconsistent with the values reflected in laws addressing problems such as sexual violence. The Supreme Court of Canada has stated that in some cases “the actions and expressions of an individual judge trigger concerns about the integrity of the judicial function itself”[74], noting that “when a disciplinary process is launched to look at the conduct of an individual judge, it is alleged that an abuse of judicial independence by a judge has threatened the integrity of the judiciary as a whole.”[75]

When this occurs, as in this case per the Inquiry Committee, “the harm alleged” to have occurred by Justice Camp at the sexual assault trial “is not curable by the appeal process”[76] that took place before the Alberta Court of Appeal that overruled the trial decision and ordered a new trial.

While it cannot be overstated that judges must be free to speak in their judicial capacity, and must be perceived to speak freely, however, there will be unavoidable occasions where a judge’s actions will be called into question.  This restraint on judicial independence finds justification within the purposes of the Canadian Judicial Council to protect the integrity of the judiciary as a whole.[77]

The Inquiry Committee found that Justice Camp committed misconduct while presiding over the sexual assault trial in R. v. Wagar and placed himself, by his conduct, in a position incompatible with the due execution of the office of judge within the meaning of paragraphs 65(2)(b) and (d) of the Judges Act.

The Inquiry Committee found that during the Wagar trial Justice Camp made comments and asked questions evidencing an antipathy towards laws designed to protect vulnerable witnesses, promote equality, and bring integrity to sexual assault trials. The Inquiry Committee also found that Justice Camp relied on discredited myths and stereotypes about women and victim-blaming during the trial and in his reasons for judgment.

The Inquiry Committee has expressed the unanimous view that a recommendation by the Judicial Council for Justice Camp’s removal is warranted, concluding that Justice Camp’s conduct is so manifestly and profoundly destructive of the concept of the impartiality, integrity and independence of the judicial role that public confidence is sufficiently undermined to render the Judge incapable of executing the judicial office.[78] A daunting concern is that the conduct and comments of Justice Camp have “threatened the integrity of the judiciary as a whole”, thereby acting to undermine “public confidence in and respect for the judiciary” – these principles being essential “to an effective judicial system and, ultimately, to democracy founded on the rule of law”.[79]

The full Canadian Judicial Council will now consider the Inquiry Committee’s report and recommendation, after giving Justice Camp an opportunity to make written submissions.[80] The full judicial council has only recommended the removal of two judges since it was created in 1971. Both prior judges resigned rather than face a vote in the Federal House of Commons and Senate over their fate.[81]

When a judge displays disrespect or antipathy for the values that a law is designed to achieve or towards witnesses whose vulnerability is exposed, it encourages a similar disrespect or antipathy in others in the judicial system. Judges are not viewed simply as participants in the justice system. They are expected to be leaders of its ethos and exemplars of its values.

– Report and Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee to the Canadian Judicial Council[82]

Editor’s Note:

In the present case, and as noted by the Inquiry Committee, where Judge Camp has taken full advantage of his opportunities to express remorse and atone for his misconduct and to make positive strides to overcome what he has characterized as his “unconscious bias”, it may appear unforgiving not to accept his position that education and an apology can be seen as a moral equivalent for removal. However, against that, lies the fact that judges occupy a unique and privileged role in society and deal consistently with “the extraordinary vulnerability of the individuals who appear before them seeking to have their rights determined, or when their lives or liberty are at stake”. In the view of the Inquiry Committee, given the seriousness of Justice Camp’s misconduct, his apologies, though sincere, did not alleviate or repair the damage and harm caused to public confidence through his conduct.[83]

The Committee recognized that judicial shortcomings can be ameliorated by a commitment to education and careful reflection. However, where judicial misconduct is rooted in a profound failure to act with impartiality and to respect equality before the law, in a context laden with significant and widespread concern about the presence of bias and prejudice, the harm to public confidence is amplified. In these circumstances, the impact of an after-the-fact commitment to education and reform as an adequate remedial measure is significantly diminished.[84]

In the Inquiry Committee’s view, in all the circumstances, Judge Camp’s reliance on education and contrition as a prescription for maintaining his unique and privileged position in society must yield to a result that more resolutely pursues the goal of restoring public confidence in the integrity of the justice system.[85]

The Inquiry Committee concluded that Justice Camp’s conduct “was so manifestly and profoundly destructive of the concept of the impartiality, integrity and independence of the judicial role that public confidence is sufficiently undermined to render the Judge incapable of executing the judicial office”.[86]

Eric Sigurdson

Endnotes:

[1] Inquiry Committee (Honourable Austin Cullen, Honourable Deborah Smith, Honourable Raymond Whalen, Karen Jensen and Cynthia Petersen), In the Matter of an Inquiry Pursuant to s. 63(1) of the Judges Act Regarding the Honourable Justice Robin Camp, Report and Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee to the Canadian Judicial Council, November 29, 2016, para. 1.

[2] Inquiry Committee (Honourable Austin Cullen, Honourable Deborah Smith, Honourable Raymond Whalen, Karen Jensen and Cynthia Petersen), In the Matter of an Inquiry Pursuant to s. 63(1) of the Judges Act Regarding the Honourable Justice Robin Camp, Report and Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee to the Canadian Judicial Council, November 29, 2016, para. 2, 26, 27.

[3] Inquiry Committee (Honourable Austin Cullen, Honourable Deborah Smith, Honourable Raymond Whalen, Karen Jensen and Cynthia Petersen), In the Matter of an Inquiry Pursuant to s. 63(1) of the Judges Act Regarding the Honourable Justice Robin Camp, Report and Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee to the Canadian Judicial Council, November 29, 2016, para. 3, 82 (note: referred to as Attorney General of Alberta at para. 30).

[4] Judges Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. J-1, s. 63(3).

[5] Judges Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. J-1, s. 65(2)(b).

[6] Judges Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. J-1, s. 65(2)(d).

[7] Inquiry Committee (Honourable Austin Cullen, Honourable Deborah Smith, Honourable Raymond Whalen, Karen Jensen and Cynthia Petersen), In the Matter of an Inquiry Pursuant to s. 63(1) of the Judges Act Regarding the Honourable Justice Robin Camp, Report and Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee to the Canadian Judicial Council, November 29, 2016, para. 3. Also see: Judges Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. J-1, s. 65(2):

65 (2) Where, in the opinion of the Council, the judge in respect of whom an inquiry or investigation has been made has become incapacitated or disabled from the due execution of the office of judge by reason of

(a) age or infirmity,

(b) having been guilty of misconduct,

(c) having failed in the due execution of that office, or

(d) having been placed, by his or her conduct or otherwise, in a position incompatible with the due execution of that office,

the Council, in its report to the Minister under subsection (1), may recommend that the judge be removed from office.

[8] Tamara Khandaker, A male judge’s comment to a woman in a sexual assault case could get him kicked off the bench, Business Insider, December 1, 2016. Also see following news articles: Sean Fine, ‘Knees together’ judge Robin Camp should lose job, committee finds, Globe & Mail, November 30, 2016; Robson Fletcher, Federal Court Justice Robin Camp should be removed from bench, judicial committee recommends: Judge asked complainant why she couldn’t just keep her knees together to avoid rape, CBC.ca, November 30, 2016; Canadian Press, Committee recommends removal of judge who asked woman why she couldn’t keep her knees together, National Post, November 30, 2016; The Canadian Press, Judicial council recommends removal of ‘knees together’ judge Robin Camp, Toronto Star, November 30, 2016

[9] Inquiry Committee (Honourable Austin Cullen, Honourable Deborah Smith, Honourable Raymond Whalen, Karen Jensen and Cynthia Petersen), In the Matter of an Inquiry Pursuant to s. 63(1) of the Judges Act Regarding the Honourable Justice Robin Camp, Report and Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee to the Canadian Judicial Council, November 29, 2016, para. 3, 36.

[10] Inquiry Committee (Honourable Austin Cullen, Honourable Deborah Smith, Honourable Raymond Whalen, Karen Jensen and Cynthia Petersen), In the Matter of an Inquiry Pursuant to s. 63(1) of the Judges Act Regarding the Honourable Justice Robin Camp, Report and Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee to the Canadian Judicial Council, November 29, 2016, para. 10, 11, 344, 345, and 281; The Canadian Press, Judicial council recommends removal of ‘knees together’ judge Robin Camp, Toronto Star, November 30, 2016; Sean Fine, ‘Knees together’ judge Robin Camp should lose job, committee finds, Globe & Mail, November 30, 2016; Canadian Press, Committee recommends removal of judge who asked woman why she couldn’t keep her knees together, National Post, November 30, 2016; Robson Fletcher, Federal Court Justice Robin Camp should be removed from bench, judicial committee recommends: Judge asked complainant why she couldn’t just keep her knees together to avoid rape, CBC.ca, November 30, 2016.

[11] Inquiry Committee (Honourable Austin Cullen, Honourable Deborah Smith, Honourable Raymond Whalen, Karen Jensen and Cynthia Petersen), In the Matter of an Inquiry Pursuant to s. 63(1) of the Judges Act Regarding the Honourable Justice Robin Camp, Report and Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee to the Canadian Judicial Council, November 29, 2016, para. 7, 241.

[12] Inquiry Committee (Honourable Austin Cullen, Honourable Deborah Smith, Honourable Raymond Whalen, Karen Jensen and Cynthia Petersen), In the Matter of an Inquiry Pursuant to s. 63(1) of the Judges Act Regarding the Honourable Justice Robin Camp, Report and Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee to the Canadian Judicial Council, November 29, 2016, para. 3, 4, 6, 7, 43, 76, 85, 104, 135, 137, 153-155, 179-182, 185, 191, 193-194, 195-199, 200-202, 205, 241, 252, 277, 289, 305, 327, 333; Robson Fletcher, Federal Court Justice Robin Camp should be removed from bench, judicial committee recommends: Judge asked complainant why she couldn’t just keep her knees together to avoid rape, CBC.ca, November 30, 2016; Canadian Press, Committee recommends removal of judge who asked woman why she couldn’t keep her knees together, National Post, November 30, 2016; Sean Fine, ‘Knees together’ judge Robin Camp should lose job, committee finds, Globe & Mail, November 30, 2016; The Canadian Press, Judicial council recommends removal of ‘knees together’ judge Robin Camp, Toronto Star, November 30, 2016.

[13] Inquiry Committee (Honourable Austin Cullen, Honourable Deborah Smith, Honourable Raymond Whalen, Karen Jensen and Cynthia Petersen), In the Matter of an Inquiry Pursuant to s. 63(1) of the Judges Act Regarding the Honourable Justice Robin Camp, Report and Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee to the Canadian Judicial Council, November 29, 2016, para. 279.

[14] Inquiry Committee (Honourable Austin Cullen, Honourable Deborah Smith, Honourable Raymond Whalen, Karen Jensen and Cynthia Petersen), In the Matter of an Inquiry Pursuant to s. 63(1) of the Judges Act Regarding the Honourable Justice Robin Camp, Report and Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee to the Canadian Judicial Council, November 29, 2016, para. 272, 294, 325.

[15] Inquiry Committee (Honourable Austin Cullen, Honourable Deborah Smith, Honourable Raymond Whalen, Karen Jensen and Cynthia Petersen), In the Matter of an Inquiry Pursuant to s. 63(1) of the Judges Act Regarding the Honourable Justice Robin Camp, Report and Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee to the Canadian Judicial Council, November 29, 2016, para. 344, 10; Canadian Press, Committee recommends removal of judge who asked woman why she couldn’t keep her knees together, National Post, November 30, 2016.

[16] Inquiry Committee (Honourable Austin Cullen, Honourable Deborah Smith, Honourable Raymond Whalen, Karen Jensen and Cynthia Petersen), In the Matter of an Inquiry Pursuant to s. 63(1) of the Judges Act Regarding the Honourable Justice Robin Camp, Report and Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee to the Canadian Judicial Council, November 29, 2016, para. 291.

[17] Canadian Judicial Counsel [www.cjc-ccm.gc.ca/english/about_en.asp?selMenu=about_mandate_en.asp]

Mandate and Powers: “Parliament created the Canadian Judicial Council in 1971. The objectives of the Council, as mandated by the Judges Act, are to promote efficiency, uniformity, and accountability, and to improve the quality of judicial service in all superior courts of Canada. The Council has authority over the work of more than 1,100 federally appointed judges.

How does the Council work? The Canadian Judicial Council itself is made up of 39 members and is chaired by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, the Right Honourable Beverley McLachlin. Council membership consists of the chief justices, associate chief justices, and some senior judges from provincial and federal superior courts across the country.

 The chief justices of each province are responsible for the day-to-day administration of justice within their own jurisdictions across Canada. Full meetings more than twice a year would be impossible, so the Council’s committee system allows members to work on a regular basis in smaller groups that focus on the issues that affect Canada’s justice system. Some committees are permanent, standing committees; others are formed from time to time to deal with specific issues or projects.

What powers does the Council have? Canadians rightly demand a high degree of professionalism and good conduct from their judges. They also need judges who are independent and able to give judgments in court without fear of retaliation or punishment. To help achieve this goal, the Canadian Judicial Council was granted power under the Judges Act to investigate complaints made by members of the public and the Attorney General about the conduct (not the decisions) of federally appointed judges. After its investigation of a complaint, the Council can make recommendations, including removing a judge from office.

 The Council has authority over the work of more than 1,100 federally appointed judges in Canada. Its main purpose is to set policies and provide tools that help the judicial system remain efficient, uniform, and accountable. The Council’s powers are set out in Part II of the Judges Act.”

[18] The Conduct of Judges and the role of the Canadian Judicial Council, Canadian Judicial Council, cjc-ccm.gc.ca; Judges Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. J-1, s. 65(1) and (2); Sean Fine, ‘Knees together’ judge Robin Camp should lose job, committee finds, Globe & Mail, November 30, 2016.

[19] The Conduct of Judges and the role of the Canadian Judicial Council, Canadian Judicial Council, cjc-ccm.gc.ca; Judges Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. J-1, s. 65(1) and (2).

[20] The Conduct of Judges and the role of the Canadian Judicial Council, Canadian Judicial Council, cjc-ccm.gc.ca; Sean Fine, ‘Knees together’ judge Robin Camp should lose job, committee finds, Globe & Mail, November 30, 2016.

[21] Tamara Khandaker, A male judge’s comment to a woman in a sexual assault case could get him kicked off the bench, Business Insider, December 1, 2016; The Conduct of Judges and the role of the Canadian Judicial Council, Canadian Judicial Council, cjc-ccm.gc.ca; Sean Fine, ‘Knees together’ judge Robin Camp should lose job, committee finds, Globe & Mail, November 30, 2016; Robson Fletcher, Federal Court Justice Robin Camp should be removed from bench, judicial committee recommends: Judge asked complainant why she couldn’t just keep her knees together to avoid rape, CBC.ca, November 30, 2016; Jason Markusoff, What’s at stake in the case of Justice Robin Camp: The Alberta judge is under review by a panel of his peers. His critics say it’s about more than his words, Macleans, September 6, 2016.

[22] Moreau-Berube v. New Brunswick (Judicial Council), [2002] 1 SCR 249, 2002 SCC 11 (Can LII), para. 59; Therrien (Re), [2001] 2 S.C.R. 3, 2001 SCC 35 (CanLII), para. 108-111 (Gonthier J.); Inquiry Committee (Honourable Austin Cullen, Honourable Deborah Smith, Honourable Raymond Whalen, Karen Jensen and Cynthia Petersen), In the Matter of an Inquiry Pursuant to s. 63(1) of the Judges Act Regarding the Honourable Justice Robin Camp, Report and Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee to the Canadian Judicial Council, November 29, 2016, para. 278.

[23] Therrien (Re), [2001] 2 S.C.R. 3, 2001 SCC 35 (CanLII), para. 108 (Gonthier J.).

[24] Therrien (Re), [2001] 2 S.C.R. 3, 2001 SCC 35 (CanLII), para. 109 (Gonthier J.).

[25] Therrien (Re), [2001] 2 S.C.R. 3, 2001 SCC 35 (CanLII), para. 110 (Gonthier J.). Moreau-Berube v. New Brunswick (Judicial Council), [2002] 1 SCR 249, 2002 SCC 11 (Can LII), para. 59.

[26] Inquiry Committee (Honourable Austin Cullen, Honourable Deborah Smith, Honourable Raymond Whalen, Karen Jensen and Cynthia Petersen), In the Matter of an Inquiry Pursuant to s. 63(1) of the Judges Act Regarding the Honourable Justice Robin Camp, Report and Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee to the Canadian Judicial Council, November 29, 2016, para. 5 and 338. — The primary importance of the integrity of the justice system has been stated as follows:

“The mandate of a disciplinary authority is to ensure compliance with judicial ethics in order to preserve “the integrity of the judiciary” … with respect to a disciplinary committee: Its role is remedial and relates to the judiciary rather than the judge affected by a sanction.”

[27] Therrien (Re), [2001] 2 S.C.R. 3, 2001 SCC 35 (CanLII), para. 108-111 (Gonthier J.). Moreau-Berube v. New Brunswick (Judicial Council), [2002] 1 SCR 249, 2002 SCC 11 (Can LII), para. 59.

[28] Inquiry Committee (Honourable Austin Cullen, Honourable Deborah Smith, Honourable Raymond Whalen, Karen Jensen and Cynthia Petersen), In the Matter of an Inquiry Pursuant to s. 63(1) of the Judges Act Regarding the Honourable Justice Robin Camp, Report and Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee to the Canadian Judicial Council, November 29, 2016, para. 1.

[29] Alison Crawford, Judge Robin Camp’s rape remarks lead to appeal before Peter MacKay promoted him, CBC News, November 18, 2015.

[30] Bill Graveland, Judge in ‘knees together’ case admits ‘non-existent’ knowledge of criminal law, Edmonton Journal, September 12, 2016.

[31] Albert Courts, Provincial Court Criminal, albertacourts.ca [albertacourts.ca/provincial-court/criminal-court]

[32] Jason Markusoff, Charlie Gillis, and Michael Friscolanti, The Robin Camp Case: who judges the judges?, Macleans, September 14, 2016; Canadian Federal Court website, Judges and Prothonotaries, The Honourable Robin Camp [http://cas-cdc-www02.cas-satj.gc.ca/portal/page/portal/fc_cf_en/Bio/Camp]; Archived – Federal Court Judicial Appointments Announced (The Honourable Robin Camp), News.gc.ca, June 26, 2015 [http://news.gc.ca/web/article-en.do?nid=992419]

[33] Alison Crawford, Judge Robin Camp’s rape remarks lead to appeal before Peter MacKay promoted him, CBC News, November 18, 2015; Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, jccf.ca [www.jccf.ca].

[34] Alison Crawford, Judge Robin Camp’s rape remarks lead to appeal before Peter MacKay promoted him, CBC News, November 18, 2015; Alison Redford, Wikipedia.org – Premier Redford was the leader of the Progressive Conservative party, and was the Premier of Alberta from October 7, 2011 to March 23, 2014.

[35] Alison Crawford, Judge Robin Camp’s rape remarks lead to appeal before Peter MacKay promoted him, CBC News, November 18, 2015; Archived – Federal Court Judicial Appointments Announced (The Honourable Robin Camp), News.gc.ca, June 26, 2015 [http://news.gc.ca/web/article-en.do?nid=992419]

[36] Elaine Craig and Alice Wooley, Myths and stereotypes: Some judges still don’t get it, Globe & Mail, November 9, 2015

[37] Inquiry Committee (Honourable Austin Cullen, Honourable Deborah Smith, Honourable Raymond Whalen, Karen Jensen and Cynthia Petersen), In the Matter of an Inquiry Pursuant to s. 63(1) of the Judges Act Regarding the Honourable Justice Robin Camp, Report and Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee to the Canadian Judicial Council, November 29, 2016, para. 14-15.

[38] Inquiry Committee (Honourable Austin Cullen, Honourable Deborah Smith, Honourable Raymond Whalen, Karen Jensen and Cynthia Petersen), In the Matter of an Inquiry Pursuant to s. 63(1) of the Judges Act Regarding the Honourable Justice Robin Camp, Report and Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee to the Canadian Judicial Council, November 29, 2016, para. 18.

[39] Robson Fletcher, Federal Court Justice Robin Camp should be removed from bench, judicial committee recommends: Judge asked complainant why she couldn’t just keep her knees together to avoid rape, CBC.ca, November 30, 2016; Canadian Press, Committee recommends removal of judge who asked woman why she couldn’t keep her knees together, National Post, November 30, 2016.

[40] Sean Fine, ‘Knees together’ judge Robin Camp should lose job, committee finds, Globe & Mail, November 30, 2016; Robson Fletcher, Federal Court Justice Robin Camp should be removed from bench, judicial committee recommends: Judge asked complainant why she couldn’t just keep her knees together to avoid rape, CBC.ca, November 30, 2016; Canadian Press, Committee recommends removal of judge who asked woman why she couldn’t keep her knees together, National Post, November 30, 2016; Sean Fine, ‘Knees together’ judge Robin Camp should lose job, committee finds, Globe & Mail, November 30, 2016; The Canadian Press, Judicial council recommends removal of ‘knees together’ judge Robin Camp, Toronto Star, November 30, 2016.

[41] Sean Fine, ‘Knees together’ judge Robin Camp should lose job, committee finds, Globe & Mail, November 30, 2016; Inquiry Committee (Honourable Austin Cullen, Honourable Deborah Smith, Honourable Raymond Whalen, Karen Jensen and Cynthia Petersen), In the Matter of an Inquiry Pursuant to s. 63(1) of the Judges Act Regarding the Honourable Justice Robin Camp, Report and Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee to the Canadian Judicial Council, November 29, 2016, para. 169-183.

[42] Inquiry Committee (Honourable Austin Cullen, Honourable Deborah Smith, Honourable Raymond Whalen, Karen Jensen and Cynthia Petersen), In the Matter of an Inquiry Pursuant to s. 63(1) of the Judges Act Regarding the Honourable Justice Robin Camp, Report and Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee to the Canadian Judicial Council, November 29, 2016, para. 26.

[43] R. v. Wagner, 2015 ABCA 327 (Alberta Court of Appeal); Inquiry Committee (Honourable Austin Cullen, Honourable Deborah Smith, Honourable Raymond Whalen, Karen Jensen and Cynthia Petersen), In the Matter of an Inquiry Pursuant to s. 63(1) of the Judges Act Regarding the Honourable Justice Robin Camp, Report and Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee to the Canadian Judicial Council, November 29, 2016, para. 27.

[44] Robson Fletcher, Federal Court Justice Robin Camp should be removed from bench, judicial committee recommends: Judge asked complainant why she couldn’t just keep her knees together to avoid rape, CBC.ca, November 30, 2016; Canadian Press, Committee recommends removal of judge who asked woman why she couldn’t keep her knees together, National Post, November 30, 2016.

[45] Inquiry Committee (Honourable Austin Cullen, Honourable Deborah Smith, Honourable Raymond Whalen, Karen Jensen and Cynthia Petersen), In the Matter of an Inquiry Pursuant to s. 63(1) of the Judges Act Regarding the Honourable Justice Robin Camp, Report and Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee to the Canadian Judicial Council, November 29, 2016, para. 28-29; Sean Fine, ‘Knees together’ judge Robin Camp should lose job, committee finds, Globe & Mail, November 30, 2016; Elaine Craig and Alice Wooley, Myths and stereotypes: Some judges still don’t get it, Globe & Mail, November 9, 2015; Alison Crawford, Judge Robin Camp’s rape remarks lead to appeal before Peter MacKay promoted him, CBC News, November 18, 2015:

“Complaints from the public about Federal Court Judge Robin Camp are pouring into the Canadian Judicial Council. To date, Canada’s judicial watchdog has received correspondence from roughly 30 people or groups incensed by the comments Camp made last year at a sexual assault trial when he was still a provincial court judge in Alberta.”

[46] Inquiry Committee (Honourable Austin Cullen, Honourable Deborah Smith, Honourable Raymond Whalen, Karen Jensen and Cynthia Petersen), In the Matter of an Inquiry Pursuant to s. 63(1) of the Judges Act Regarding the Honourable Justice Robin Camp, Report and Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee to the Canadian Judicial Council, November 29, 2016, para. 3, 82 (note: referred to as Attorney General of Alberta at para. 30).

[47] Inquiry Committee (Honourable Austin Cullen, Honourable Deborah Smith, Honourable Raymond Whalen, Karen Jensen and Cynthia Petersen), In the Matter of an Inquiry Pursuant to s. 63(1) of the Judges Act Regarding the Honourable Justice Robin Camp, Report and Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee to the Canadian Judicial Council, November 29, 2016, para. 30.

[48] Inquiry Committee (Honourable Austin Cullen, Honourable Deborah Smith, Honourable Raymond Whalen, Karen Jensen and Cynthia Petersen), In the Matter of an Inquiry Pursuant to s. 63(1) of the Judges Act Regarding the Honourable Justice Robin Camp, Report and Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee to the Canadian Judicial Council, November 29, 2016, para. 1-3.

[49] Judges Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. J-1, s. 63(1).

[50] Inquiry Committee (Honourable Austin Cullen, Honourable Deborah Smith, Honourable Raymond Whalen, Karen Jensen and Cynthia Petersen), In the Matter of an Inquiry Pursuant to s. 63(1) of the Judges Act Regarding the Honourable Justice Robin Camp, Report and Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee to the Canadian Judicial Council, November 29, 2016, para. 3, 36.

[51] Judges Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. J-1, s. 65(2)(b).

[52] Judges Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. J-1, s. 65(2)(d).

[53] Inquiry Committee (Honourable Austin Cullen, Honourable Deborah Smith, Honourable Raymond Whalen, Karen Jensen and Cynthia Petersen), In the Matter of an Inquiry Pursuant to s. 63(1) of the Judges Act Regarding the Honourable Justice Robin Camp, Report and Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee to the Canadian Judicial Council, November 29, 2016, para. 3. Also see: Judges Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. J-1, s. 65(2):

65 (2) Where, in the opinion of the Council, the judge in respect of whom an inquiry or investigation has been made has become incapacitated or disabled from the due execution of the office of judge by reason of

(a) age or infirmity,

(b) having been guilty of misconduct,

(c) having failed in the due execution of that office, or

(d) having been placed, by his or her conduct or otherwise, in a position incompatible with the due execution of that office,

the Council, in its report to the Minister under subsection (1), may recommend that the judge be removed from office.

[54] Inquiry Committee (Honourable Austin Cullen, Honourable Deborah Smith, Honourable Raymond Whalen, Karen Jensen and Cynthia Petersen), In the Matter of an Inquiry Pursuant to s. 63(1) of the Judges Act Regarding the Honourable Justice Robin Camp, Report and Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee to the Canadian Judicial Council, November 29, 2016, para. 249-251.

[55] Inquiry Committee (Honourable Austin Cullen, Honourable Deborah Smith, Honourable Raymond Whalen, Karen Jensen and Cynthia Petersen), In the Matter of an Inquiry Pursuant to s. 63(1) of the Judges Act Regarding the Honourable Justice Robin Camp, Report and Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee to the Canadian Judicial Council, November 29, 2016, para. 251.

[56] Moreau-Berube v. New Brunswick (Judicial Council), [2002] 1 SCR 249, 2002 SCC 11 (Can LII), para. 60; Inquiry Committee (Honourable Austin Cullen, Honourable Deborah Smith, Honourable Raymond Whalen, Karen Jensen and Cynthia Petersen), In the Matter of an Inquiry Pursuant to s. 63(1) of the Judges Act Regarding the Honourable Justice Robin Camp, Report and Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee to the Canadian Judicial Council, November 29, 2016, para. 4-5.

[57] Inquiry Committee (Honourable Austin Cullen, Honourable Deborah Smith, Honourable Raymond Whalen, Karen Jensen and Cynthia Petersen), In the Matter of an Inquiry Pursuant to s. 63(1) of the Judges Act Regarding the Honourable Justice Robin Camp, Report and Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee to the Canadian Judicial Council, November 29, 2016, para. 3-4.

[58] Inquiry Committee (Honourable Austin Cullen, Honourable Deborah Smith, Honourable Raymond Whalen, Karen Jensen and Cynthia Petersen), In the Matter of an Inquiry Pursuant to s. 63(1) of the Judges Act Regarding the Honourable Justice Robin Camp, Report and Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee to the Canadian Judicial Council, November 29, 2016, para. 3, 6, 7, 43, 76, 85, 104, 135, 137, 153-155, 179-182, 185, 191, 193-194, 195-199, 200-202, 205, 241, 252, 277, 289, 305, 327, 333; Robson Fletcher, Federal Court Justice Robin Camp should be removed from bench, judicial committee recommends: Judge asked complainant why she couldn’t just keep her knees together to avoid rape, CBC.ca, November 30, 2016; Canadian Press, Committee recommends removal of judge who asked woman why she couldn’t keep her knees together, National Post, November 30, 2016; Sean Fine, ‘Knees together’ judge Robin Camp should lose job, committee finds, Globe & Mail, November 30, 2016; The Canadian Press, Judicial council recommends removal of ‘knees together’ judge Robin Camp, Toronto Star, November 30, 2016.

[59] Inquiry Committee (Honourable Austin Cullen, Honourable Deborah Smith, Honourable Raymond Whalen, Karen Jensen and Cynthia Petersen), In the Matter of an Inquiry Pursuant to s. 63(1) of the Judges Act Regarding the Honourable Justice Robin Camp, Report and Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee to the Canadian Judicial Council, November 29, 2016, para. 6, 7, 10, 76, 104, 182, 241, 277, 327, 344.

[60] Inquiry Committee (Honourable Austin Cullen, Honourable Deborah Smith, Honourable Raymond Whalen, Karen Jensen and Cynthia Petersen), In the Matter of an Inquiry Pursuant to s. 63(1) of the Judges Act Regarding the Honourable Justice Robin Camp, Report and Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee to the Canadian Judicial Council, November 29, 2016, para. 11, 345.

[61] Inquiry Committee (Honourable Austin Cullen, Honourable Deborah Smith, Honourable Raymond Whalen, Karen Jensen and Cynthia Petersen), In the Matter of an Inquiry Pursuant to s. 63(1) of the Judges Act Regarding the Honourable Justice Robin Camp, Report and Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee to the Canadian Judicial Council, November 29, 2016, para. 278.

[62] Inquiry Committee (Honourable Austin Cullen, Honourable Deborah Smith, Honourable Raymond Whalen, Karen Jensen and Cynthia Petersen), In the Matter of an Inquiry Pursuant to s. 63(1) of the Judges Act Regarding the Honourable Justice Robin Camp, Report and Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee to the Canadian Judicial Council, November 29, 2016, para. 272, 294, 325.

[63] Inquiry Committee (Honourable Austin Cullen, Honourable Deborah Smith, Honourable Raymond Whalen, Karen Jensen and Cynthia Petersen), In the Matter of an Inquiry Pursuant to s. 63(1) of the Judges Act Regarding the Honourable Justice Robin Camp, Report and Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee to the Canadian Judicial Council, November 29, 2016, para. 272, 276.

[64] Inquiry Committee (Honourable Austin Cullen, Honourable Deborah Smith, Honourable Raymond Whalen, Karen Jensen and Cynthia Petersen), In the Matter of an Inquiry Pursuant to s. 63(1) of the Judges Act Regarding the Honourable Justice Robin Camp, Report and Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee to the Canadian Judicial Council, November 29, 2016, para. 343 and 345.

[65] Inquiry Committee (Honourable Austin Cullen, Honourable Deborah Smith, Honourable Raymond Whalen, Karen Jensen and Cynthia Petersen), In the Matter of an Inquiry Pursuant to s. 63(1) of the Judges Act Regarding the Honourable Justice Robin Camp, Report and Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee to the Canadian Judicial Council, November 29, 2016, para. 325.

[66] Inquiry Committee (Honourable Austin Cullen, Honourable Deborah Smith, Honourable Raymond Whalen, Karen Jensen and Cynthia Petersen), In the Matter of an Inquiry Pursuant to s. 63(1) of the Judges Act Regarding the Honourable Justice Robin Camp, Report and Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee to the Canadian Judicial Council, November 29, 2016, para. 281, 287-289.

[67] Inquiry Committee (Honourable Austin Cullen, Honourable Deborah Smith, Honourable Raymond Whalen, Karen Jensen and Cynthia Petersen), In the Matter of an Inquiry Pursuant to s. 63(1) of the Judges Act Regarding the Honourable Justice Robin Camp, Report and Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee to the Canadian Judicial Council, November 29, 2016, para. 93-99, 142, 305, 316, 339, 342; Robson Fletcher, Federal Court Justice Robin Camp should be removed from bench, judicial committee recommends: Judge asked complainant why she couldn’t just keep her knees together to avoid rape, CBC.ca, November 30, 2016; Canadian Press, Committee recommends removal of judge who asked woman why she couldn’t keep her knees together, National Post, November 30, 2016; Sean Fine, ‘Knees together’ judge Robin Camp should lose job, committee finds, Globe & Mail, November 30, 2016; The Canadian Press, Judicial council recommends removal of ‘knees together’ judge Robin Camp, Toronto Star, November 30, 2016.

[68] Inquiry Committee (Honourable Austin Cullen, Honourable Deborah Smith, Honourable Raymond Whalen, Karen Jensen and Cynthia Petersen), In the Matter of an Inquiry Pursuant to s. 63(1) of the Judges Act Regarding the Honourable Justice Robin Camp, Report and Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee to the Canadian Judicial Council, November 29, 2016, para. 277-279.

[69] Inquiry Committee (Honourable Austin Cullen, Honourable Deborah Smith, Honourable Raymond Whalen, Karen Jensen and Cynthia Petersen), In the Matter of an Inquiry Pursuant to s. 63(1) of the Judges Act Regarding the Honourable Justice Robin Camp, Report and Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee to the Canadian Judicial Council, November 29, 2016, para. 279-280.

[70] Inquiry Committee (Honourable Austin Cullen, Honourable Deborah Smith, Honourable Raymond Whalen, Karen Jensen and Cynthia Petersen), In the Matter of an Inquiry Pursuant to s. 63(1) of the Judges Act Regarding the Honourable Justice Robin Camp, Report and Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee to the Canadian Judicial Council, November 29, 2016, para. 292.

[71] Inquiry Committee (Honourable Austin Cullen, Honourable Deborah Smith, Honourable Raymond Whalen, Karen Jensen and Cynthia Petersen), In the Matter of an Inquiry Pursuant to s. 63(1) of the Judges Act Regarding the Honourable Justice Robin Camp, Report and Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee to the Canadian Judicial Council, November 29, 2016, para. 293.

[72] Therrien (Re), [2001] 2 S.C.R. 3, 2001 SCC 35 (CanLII), para. 108-111 (Gonthier J.).

[73] Moreau-Berube v. New Brunswick (Judicial Council), [2002] 1 SCR 249, 2002 SCC 11 (Can LII), para. 60.

[74] Elaine Craig and Alice Wooley, Myths and stereotypes: Some judges still don’t get it, Globe & Mail, November 9, 2015

[75] Moreau-Berube v. New Brunswick (Judicial Council), [2002] 1 SCR 249, 2002 SCC 11 (Can LII), para. 58; Therrien (Re), [2001] 2 S.C.R. 3, 2001 SCC 35 (CanLII), para. 108-111 (Gonthier J.).

[76] Moreau-Berube v. New Brunswick (Judicial Council), [2002] 1 SCR 249, 2002 SCC 11 (Can LII), para. 58-59.

[77] Therrien (Re), [2001] 2 S.C.R. 3, 2001 SCC 35 (CanLII), para. 108-111 (Gonthier J.); Moreau-Berube v. New Brunswick (Judicial Council), [2002] 1 SCR 249, 2002 SCC 11 (Can LII), para. 59.

[78] Inquiry Committee (Honourable Austin Cullen, Honourable Deborah Smith, Honourable Raymond Whalen, Karen Jensen and Cynthia Petersen), In the Matter of an Inquiry Pursuant to s. 63(1) of the Judges Act Regarding the Honourable Justice Robin Camp, Report and Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee to the Canadian Judicial Council, November 29, 2016, para. 10, 344; The Canadian Press, Judicial council recommends removal of ‘knees together’ judge Robin Camp, Toronto Star, November 30, 2016; Sean Fine, ‘Knees together’ judge Robin Camp should lose job, committee finds, Globe & Mail, November 30, 2016; Canadian Press, Committee recommends removal of judge who asked woman why she couldn’t keep her knees together, National Post, November 30, 2016; Robson Fletcher, Federal Court Justice Robin Camp should be removed from bench, judicial committee recommends: Judge asked complainant why she couldn’t just keep her knees together to avoid rape, CBC.ca, November 30, 2016.

[79] Moreau-Berube v. New Brunswick (Judicial Council), [2002] 1 SCR 249, 2002 SCC 11 (Can LII), para. 59; Therrien (Re), [2001] 2 S.C.R. 3, 2001 SCC 35 (CanLII), para. 108-111 (Gonthier J.).

[80] The Conduct of Judges and the role of the Canadian Judicial Council, Canadian Judicial Council, cjc-ccm.gc.ca; Judges Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. J-1, s. 65(1) and (2).

[81] Sean Fine, ‘Knees together’ judge Robin Camp should lose job, committee finds, Globe & Mail, November 30, 2016; Tamara Khandaker, A male judge’s comment to a woman in a sexual assault case could get him kicked off the bench, Business Insider, December 1, 2016; The Conduct of Judges and the role of the Canadian Judicial Council, Canadian Judicial Council, cjc-ccm.gc.ca; Robson Fletcher, Federal Court Justice Robin Camp should be removed from bench, judicial committee recommends: Judge asked complainant why she couldn’t just keep her knees together to avoid rape, CBC.ca, November 30, 2016.

[82] Inquiry Committee (Honourable Austin Cullen, Honourable Deborah Smith, Honourable Raymond Whalen, Karen Jensen and Cynthia Petersen), In the Matter of an Inquiry Pursuant to s. 63(1) of the Judges Act Regarding the Honourable Justice Robin Camp, Report and Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee to the Canadian Judicial Council, November 29, 2016, para. 289.

[83] Inquiry Committee (Honourable Austin Cullen, Honourable Deborah Smith, Honourable Raymond Whalen, Karen Jensen and Cynthia Petersen), In the Matter of an Inquiry Pursuant to s. 63(1) of the Judges Act Regarding the Honourable Justice Robin Camp, Report and Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee to the Canadian Judicial Council, November 29, 2016, para. 8, 342.

[84] Inquiry Committee (Honourable Austin Cullen, Honourable Deborah Smith, Honourable Raymond Whalen, Karen Jensen and Cynthia Petersen), In the Matter of an Inquiry Pursuant to s. 63(1) of the Judges Act Regarding the Honourable Justice Robin Camp, Report and Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee to the Canadian Judicial Council, November 29, 2016, para. 9.

[85] Inquiry Committee (Honourable Austin Cullen, Honourable Deborah Smith, Honourable Raymond Whalen, Karen Jensen and Cynthia Petersen), In the Matter of an Inquiry Pursuant to s. 63(1) of the Judges Act Regarding the Honourable Justice Robin Camp, Report and Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee to the Canadian Judicial Council, November 29, 2016, para. 343.

[86] Inquiry Committee (Honourable Austin Cullen, Honourable Deborah Smith, Honourable Raymond Whalen, Karen Jensen and Cynthia Petersen), In the Matter of an Inquiry Pursuant to s. 63(1) of the Judges Act Regarding the Honourable Justice Robin Camp, Report and Recommendation of the Inquiry Committee to the Canadian Judicial Council, November 29, 2016, para. 10, 249, 344.