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, in Canada 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.^[1]

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.^[2]

The Canadian Judicial Council[3] – made up of 39 members who are the chief justices, associate chief justices, and some senior judges from provincial and federal courts across Canada – was created by Parliament in 1971. The objectives of the Judicial 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 Judicial Council has authority over the work of more than 1,100 federally appointed judges.

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 an investigation of a complaint, the Judicial Council can make recommendations, including removing a judge from office.[4]

The Canadian Judicial Council’s only power is to recommend to Parliament that a judge be removed from office,[5] as an important provision of the Constitution is that only Parliament can approve the actual dismissal of any judge from judicial office.[6] Canada’s Parliament has never had to face such a situation.[7] Since the inception of the Judicial Committee, it has only recommended the removal of two judges,[8] both of whom stepped down before the question was brought to a vote in the House of Commons and the Senate.[9]

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^[10]

This week, on March 8, 2017, the Canadian Judicial Council – for the third time in Canadian history – released a critical rebuke of a federally appointed Judge, and recommended that he be removed from the bench for judicial misconduct.  Federal Court Judge Robin Camp, a controversial judge who asked a sexual assault complainant in a criminal trial why she could not keep her knees together, resigned upon the release of the Canadian Judicial Council report[11] and prior to the matter being brought to a vote before the House of Commons and the Senate.[12]

Court transcripts from the 2014 sexual assault trial evidenced that Justice Camp, who was then a provincial court judge, called the complainant (who was homeless and 19 years old at the time of the alleged assault) “the accused” numerous times — a mistake he repeated at the Inquiry Hearing before correcting himself. Justice Camp also told the young woman “pain and sex sometimes go together” and asked why she didn’t just keep her “knees together.”[13]

Justice Camp’s misconduct was found by an Inquiry Committee and ultimately the Canadian Judicial Council to be manifestly serious, causing significant harm to public confidence in the judicial role.  A daunting concern was 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”.^[14]

Justice Robin Camp … acted in a manner that seriously undermined public confidence in the judiciary.

– Canadian Judicial Council[15]

Overview

The resignation came after the Canadian Judicial Council recommended in a decision released on March 8, 2017, that Justice Camp be removed from the bench because his conduct was “manifestly and profoundly destructive” to the impartiality and integrity of the judiciary.  The Judicial Council’s majority decision agreed with the unanimous November 29, 2016 recommendation of its five member Inquiry Committee[16] appointed pursuant to the Judges Act to conduct an investigation and inquiry into the conduct of Justice Camp at the original sexual assault trial:[17]

“Council agrees with the [Inquiry] Committee that the Judge committed serious misconduct and placed himself, by his conduct, in a position incompatible with the due execution of the office of a judge within the meaning of ss. 65(2)(b) and (d) of the [Judges] Act.

…

The statements made by Justice Camp during the trial and in his decision, the values implicit in those statements and the way in which he conducted himself are so antithetical to the contemporary values of our judicial system with respect to the manner in which complainants in sexual assault cases should be treated that, in our view, confidence in the system cannot be maintained unless the system disassociates itself from the image which the judge, by his statements and approach, represents in the mind of a reasonable member of the public.  In this case, that can only be accomplished by his removal from the system which, if he were not removed, he would continue to represent.

…

We find that the judge’s conduct, viewed in its totality and in light of all of its consequences, was so manifestly and profoundly destructive of the concept of impartiality, integrity and independence of the judicial role that public confidence is sufficiently undermined to render the judge incapable of executing the judicial office”.

A judge may be removed from judicial office only through a joint resolution of Parliament. Because Justice Camp resigned, the Canadian government will no longer have to vote on his removal.[18]  Federal Justice Minister and Attorney General Wilson-Raybould stated that the government planned to have Justice Camp removed from his judicial office had he not resigned:[19]

“It is and was the government’s intention to move on the [Canadian Judicial Council] recommendation … to ensure the integrity and public confidence in the justice system”.

Member of Parliament Murray Rankin stated that by resigning, Justice Camp took the only course of action available in light of the conclusions of the Judicial Council.[20]

Until his resignation, Justice Camp had fought hard to keep his job. In addition to written submissions, he asked to speak directly to the 23 chief and associate chief justices who made up the Canadian Judicial Council deciding his case. However, the majority ruled that Justice Camp had already “been fully and fairly heard” before the Judicial Council’s Inquiry Committee, and declined stating that nothing had changed since his public hearing in the Fall of 2016. Justice Camp then sought judicial review and relief from the Federal Court to stop the Canadian Judicial Council from deliberating his fate. The Federal Court dismissed Judge Camp’s application on February 23, 2017.[21]

The Canadian Judicial Council ruled nineteen (19) to four (4) to recommend to Parliament that Justice Camp be removed from his judicial office. The minority decision held that although Justice Camp’s conduct amounted to serious judicial misconduct, and clearly called for “denunciation and discipline”, the sanction imposed should be something less than removal because he had rehabilitated himself through counselling and education.[22]

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^[23]

Recommendations by the Canadian Judicial Council that judges be removed from office – “in effect be fired” – are rare in Canada because judicial independence is a cornerstone of the judicial system of justice. Since the Canadian Judicial Council’s creation in 1971, no judge has gone to such lengths to keep his job. As noted, there have only been two other cases where the Canadian Judicial Council recommended to Parliament that a judge be removed from the bench. In both earlier cases the judges also resigned rather than be removed under the provision of the Constitution that requires Parliament to approve the dismissal of a judge from judicial office.[24]

One commentator has suggested that the larger question in this case is “about judicial independence from political correctness gone amok”.[25] Although the commentator was being critical, judicial independence is in fact an important consideration in these type of proceedings.

Complaints about the conduct of judges during the course of a trial, an 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. The Canadian Judicial Council in this case was “mindful” that any criticism they leveled against a judge must not have a chilling effect on the ability of judges, generally, to pursue relevant inquiries on the facts or law and to call attention to deficiencies in the law in appropriate cases:[26]

“Indeed, judges have a duty to be critical of existing legislation in specific circumstances, for example where a judge forms a view that a specific provision contravenes our Constitution or otherwise operates in a deficient manner. We do not in any way intend to deter judges from asking the hard questions and taking the difficult positions that are sometimes necessary to discharge their judicial responsibilities”.

Unfortunately, there will unavoidably be occasions where a judge’s 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”.^[27]

While it cannot be overstated that judges must be free to speak in their judicial capacity, and must be perceived to speak freely, there will be occasions where a judge’s conduct must be addressed by the Canadian Judicial Council to protect the integrity of the judiciary as a whole.^[28] A daunting concern for our system of justice is the inappropriate conduct of a Judge that may “threaten the integrity of the judiciary”, 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”.^[29]

Accordingly, having disciplinary proceedings conducted by a judge’s peers – through the vehicle of the Canadian Judicial Council – offers the guarantee 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,^[30] 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.^[31]

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 extremely 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”^[32], 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.”^[33]

Our legal system still remains mired in 19th-century stereotypes about women, who are suspected of duplicity, promiscuity, malice, and false testimony … Until we get over the premise that it is women alone who are responsible for protecting themselves from rape, I suspect we will see more such trials and more protests demanding a woman’s right to sexual autonomy.

– Constance Backhouse, Chair in sexual assault legislation, University of Ottawa Law School[34]

Background – Original Criminal Trial and Inquiry Hearing

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.^[35]

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”). 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. 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.[36] The accused was acquitted in the second trial.[37]

An inquiry was convened as a result of a complaint from the Minister of Justice and Attorney General for Alberta[38] to the Canadian Judicial Council concerning Justice Camp’s conduct during the original trial and inappropriate statements in his written Reasons for Judgment.[39] The allegations all relate to events, comments and conduct that took place while Judge Camp served on the Alberta Provincial Court.  The request from the Attorney General of Alberta was made after the Judge had become a Justice of the Federal Court, thus giving jurisdiction to the Canadian Judicial Council to determine Judge Camp’s suitability to remain in office as a Justice of the Federal Court.[40]

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.[41]

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^[42]

Pursuant to the Judges Act, the Inquiry Committee’s investigation sought to determine whether Justice Camp committed misconduct[43] and/or placed himself by his conduct in a position incompatible with the due execution of the office of judge,[44] and if so, whether “public confidence is sufficiently undermined to render Justice Camp incapable of executing the judicial office”.[45]

The Inquiry Hearing was held in public over five days from September 6 to 12, 2016.[46]

The Inquiry Committee issued a 112 page report on November 29, 2016, which was presented to Canadian Judicial Council. The Judicial Council in this case was composed of 23 members who deliberated in this matter (the Chairperson having no vote in such deliberations except in the event of a tie).[47] The Report of the Inquiry Committee was unanimous in its recommendation that Judge Camp’s removal was warranted, concluding that:[48]

• throughout the criminal trial, Judge Camp made comments or asked questions evidencing an antipathy toward laws designed to protect vulnerable witnesses, promote equality, and bring integrity to sexual assault trials. It also found that Judge Camp relied on discredited myths and stereotypes about women and victim-blaming during the trial and in his Reasons for Judgment.[49]
• Judge Camp committed misconduct and placed himself in a position incompatible with the due execution of the office of a judge within the meaning of paragraphs 65(2)(b) and (d) of the Judges Act.[50]
• Judge Camp’s conduct in the trial was so manifestly and profoundly destructive of the concept of impartiality, integrity and independence of the judicial role that public confidence is sufficiently undermined to render the Judge incapable of executing the judicial office.[51]

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 ^[52]

The Inquiry Committee expressed the unanimous view that a recommendation by the Judicial Council for the Judge’s removal was warranted.[53] The Inquiry Committee specifically noted the following particulars in its “Report and Recommendation to the Canadian Judicial Council”:[54]

• 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.”

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.”[55]  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.”[56]

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[57]

Canadian Judicial Committee

The mandate of the Canadian Judicial Council is to consider the Inquiry Committee report and record of inquiry, as well as the Judge’s written submissions, and to formulate a recommendation about whether or not Justice Camp should be removed from office.[58]

While there was disagreement from Judge Camp about the effect and consequences of his conduct, he readily acknowledged his misconduct:[59]

“Justice Camp agrees that his comments in Wagar were insensitive, rude, and, in places, displayed an ignorance of the ways in which victims of trauma and/or sexual violence process and respond to events”.

The misconduct was again acknowledged by Judge Camp’s legal counsel in closing submissions to the Canadian Judicial Committee.  Given Judge Camp’s acknowledgement, the key issue before the Canadian Judicial Committee was not whether there was misconduct, but whether the gravity of the misconduct warranted removal from office.[60]

We find that the Judge’s conduct, viewed in its totality and in light of all of its consequences, was so manifestly and profoundly destructive of the concept of impartiality, integrity and independence of the judicial role that public confidence is sufficiently undermined to render the Judge incapable of executing the judicial office.

– Canadian Judicial Committee[61]

The Canadian Judicial Council found that Judge Camp’s questions to the complainant at the criminal trial were not simply attempts at clarification. The Canadian Judicial Council found that he spoke in a manner that was at times condescending, humiliating and disrespectful. In this matter, having regard to the totality of the Judge’s conduct and all of its consequences, Judge Camp’s apologies and efforts at remediation did not adequately repair the damage caused to public confidence.[62]

The Canadian Judicial Council found that the Inquiry Committee’s findings and inferences were entirely reasonable and supported by the facts. In this type of matter, the Judicial Council noted that it is not appropriate to interpret or second-guess the decision of the Court of Appeal, and noted that the legal outcome of both the first sexual assault trial and the second sexual assault trial is of limited relevance to the issues. The respective roles of courts of appeal and the Canadian Judicial Council are quite different: courts remedy legal errors while the Canadian Judicial Council addresses issues of conduct. A judge may render an impeccable legal decision and still engage in misconduct.[63] In this case, the allegations of misconduct against Judge Camp were primarily focused on his expressed antipathy for the values which the law protects and promotes, regardless of whether he applied the law correctly.[64]

Whether Judge Camp was sincerely remorseful or personally rehabilitated is not determinative of the matter. Even if the Canadian Judicial Council were to agree that Judge Camp is fully rehabilitated, the Council found that in all the circumstances, the Judge’s efforts at remediation must yield to a result that more resolutely pursues the goal of restoring public confidence in the integrity of the justice system.[65]

As Justice Gonthier noted in the Supreme Court of Canada decision of Therrien,[66] albeit in a different context:[67]

“… I am not unaware that this case represented, in a sense, an invitation to society to be ever more generous. The pardon that the appellant was granted is an act of generosity, of brotherhood, but also an act of justice on the part of society. It is undoubtedly desirable that such gestures be praised and encouraged. However, we cannot ignore the unique role embodied by the judge in that society, and the extraordinary vulnerability of the individuals who appear before that judge seeking to have their rights determined, or when their lives or liberty are at stake. Above all, a person who appears before a judge is entitled to have justice done in his or her case, and that justice be seen to be done by the general public. That kind of generosity is not something that a person can be compelled to offer. In the specific circumstances of the case at bar, the values of forgiveness and selfless generosity must therefore yield to the values of justice and the all-important integrity of the justice system”.

In this case, the Canadian Judicial Council was guided by the observation of Justice Gonthier that “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”, and that “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”.[68]

In the circumstances, the Canadian Judicial Council found that the statements made by Justice Camp during the criminal sexual assault trial and in his written decision, the values implicit in those statements, and the way in which he conducted himself were “so antithetical to the contemporary values of our judicial system with respect to the manner in which complainants in sexual assault case should be treated that, in our view, confidence in the system cannot be maintained unless the system disassociates itself from the image which the Judge, by his statements and approach, represents in the mind of a reasonable member of the public”. In this case, that could only be accomplished by his removal from the system which, if he were not removed, he would continue to represent.[69]

The Canadian Judicial Council agreed with the Inquiry Committee that Justice Camp committed serious misconduct and placed himself, by his conduct, in a position incompatible with the due execution of the office of a judge within the meaning of ss. 65(2)(b) and (d) of the Judges Act.[70]

Upon full consideration, the Canadian Judicial Council concluded as follows:[71]

“We find that the Judge’s conduct, viewed in its totality and in light of all of its consequences, was so manifestly and profoundly destructive of the concept of impartiality, integrity and independence of the judicial role that public confidence is sufficiently undermined to render the Judge incapable of executing the judicial office.

Accordingly, Council recommends that Justice Camp be removed from office.”

 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^[72]

How Justice Camp was Appointed to Bench

Judge 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.^[73]

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.^[74] His experience in criminal law was limited, and specifically described at the Inquiry Hearing as “quite restricted”.^[75] 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.^[76]

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.^[77] 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”.^[78]

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.^[79]

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.^[80]  With respect to Judge Camp’s promotion to the Federal Court, two law professors stated:^[81]

“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.”

Conclusion

A judge who uses their role in a 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.[82]

As I noted in my previous article on Justice Camp,[83] but which bears repeating – 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,^[84] 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.^[85]

As noted by legal commentators, “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”.^[86]

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^[87]

The Canadian Judicial Committee recommended that Justice Camp’s removal was warranted, concluding 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.^[88]

Canadian Judicial Council recommendations to remove a judge from the bench are rare, as they should be in a system of justice which deems judicial independence a cornerstone. The Canadian Judicial Council’s power is limited to a recommendation to Parliament that a judge be removed from office.[89] An important protection for the independence of the judiciary being a provision of the Constitution that – at the end of the day – only Parliament may ultimately approve the actual dismissal of any judge from judicial office.[90] Since the Canadian Judicial Council’s creation in 1971, there have only been two other cases where the Canadian Judicial Council recommended to Parliament that a judge be removed from the bench.[91]

The bedrock of our democracy is the rule of law, and that means we have to have an independent judiciary, judges who can make decisions independent of the political winds that are blowing.[92] However, this does not mean judges independent of the laws that they are sworn to uphold.

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.^[93]

Eric Sigurdson

Endnotes:

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

[2] 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.

[3] 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.”

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

[5] 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).

[6] Constitution Act, 1867, sections 96 to 100; Alison Crawford, Justice Robin Camp resigns after judicial council recommends removal: Judicial watchdog finds judge’s conduct ‘manifestly and profoundly destructive of the concept of impartiality’, CBC News, March 9, 2017; Sean Fine, Judge in ‘knees together’ trial resigns after council recommends he be fired, Globe and Mail, March 9, 2017.

[7] 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.

[8] Todd Korol, Before Justice Camp, these two judges were recommended for removal, Globe and Mail, March 10, 2017.

[9] 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.

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

[11] Report of the Canadian Judicial Council to the Minister of Justice (In the Matter of Section 65 of the Judges Act, and the Inquiry Committee convened by the Canadian Judicial Council to review the conduct of the Honourable Robin Camp of the Federal Court), Canadian Judicial Council, March 8, 2017 [www.cjc-ccm.gc.ca/cmslib/general/Camp_Docs/2017-03-08%20Report%20to%20Minister.pdf].

[12] Report of the Canadian Judicial Council to the Minister of Justice (In the Matter of Section 65 of the Judges Act, and the Inquiry Committee convened by the Canadian Judicial Council to review the conduct of the Honourable Robin Camp of the Federal Court), Canadian Judicial Council, March 8, 2017 [www.cjc-ccm.gc.ca/cmslib/general/Camp_Docs/2017-03-08%20Report%20to%20Minister.pdf]; Mallory Hendry, Justice Robin Camp resigns following CJC report, Canadian Lawyer, March 9, 2017; Alison Crawford, Justice Robin Camp resigns after judicial council recommends removal: Judicial watchdog finds judge’s conduct ‘manifestly and profoundly destructive of the concept of impartiality’, CBC News, March 9, 2017; Canadian Press, ‘Knees together’ judge Robin Camp resigning from the bench, Yahoo News, March 9, 2017; Emanuella Grinberg, Judge who asked woman why she couldn’t keep knees together resigns, CNN, March 9, 2017; Canadian Press, ‘Knees together’ judge Robin Camp resigns from the bench after Judicial Council recommends his removal, National Post, March 9, 2017; Sean Fine, Judge in ‘knees together’ trial resigns after council recommends he be fired, Globe and Mail, March 9, 2017; Canadian Press, ‘Knees together’ judge in sexual assault trial says he will resign from the bench, The Toronto Star, March 9, 2017.

[13] Canadian Press, ‘Knees together’ judge Robin Camp resigning from the bench, Yahoo News, March 9, 2017; Mallory Hendry, Justice Robin Camp resigns following CJC report, Canadian Lawyer, March 9, 2017; Alison Crawford, Justice Robin Camp resigns after judicial council recommends removal: Judicial watchdog finds judge’s conduct ‘manifestly and profoundly destructive of the concept of impartiality’, CBC News, March 9, 2017; Emanuella Grinberg, Judge who asked woman why she couldn’t keep knees together resigns, CNN, March 9, 2017.

[14] 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.

[15] Report of the Canadian Judicial Council to the Minister of Justice (In the Matter of Section 65 of the Judges Act, and the Inquiry Committee convened by the Canadian Judicial Council to review the conduct of the Honourable Robin Camp of the Federal Court), Canadian Judicial Council, March 8, 2017, para. 3.

[16] The Inquiry Committee concluded “that Justice Camp’s conduct in the Wagar Trial 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. Accordingly, the Inquiry Committee expresses the unanimous view that a recommendation by Council for Justice Camp’s removal is warranted”: Eric Sigurdson, Canadian Judicial Council: Inquiry Committee recommends Federal Court Judge Robin Camp be removed from bench – controversial conduct and “knees together” comments caused irreparable damage to public confidence in judiciary and rule of law, Sigurdson Post, December 3, 2016.

[17] Report of the Canadian Judicial Council to the Minister of Justice (In the Matter of Section 65 of the Judges Act, and the Inquiry Committee convened by the Canadian Judicial Council to review the conduct of the Honourable Robin Camp of the Federal Court), Canadian Judicial Council, March 8, 2017, para. 16, 47 and 53; Alison Crawford, Justice Robin Camp resigns after judicial council recommends removal: Judicial watchdog finds judge’s conduct ‘manifestly and profoundly destructive of the concept of impartiality’, CBC News, March 9, 2017; Emanuella Grinberg, Judge who asked woman why she couldn’t keep knees together resigns, CNN, March 9, 2017.

[18] Mallory Hendry, Justice Robin Camp resigns following CJC report, Canadian Lawyer, March 9, 2017.

[19] Canadian Press, ‘Knees together’ judge Robin Camp resigning from the bench, Yahoo News, March 9, 2017.

[20] Alison Crawford, Justice Robin Camp resigns after judicial council recommends removal: Judicial watchdog finds judge’s conduct ‘manifestly and profoundly destructive of the concept of impartiality’, CBC News, March 9, 2017.

[21] Alison Crawford, Justice Robin Camp loses bid to suspend watchdog’s deliberations on his fate: Federal Court denies motion to stop Canadian Judicial Council from considering recommendation to remove judge, CBC News, February 24, 2017; Alison Crawford, Justice Robin Camp resigns after judicial council recommends removal: Judicial watchdog finds judge’s conduct ‘manifestly and profoundly destructive of the concept of impartiality’, CBC News, March 9, 2017.

[22] CJC Review of the Conduct of the Honourable Robin Camp, Reasons for voting against Motion to Adopt proposed Report to Minister Per: David Smith CJ, Jenkins CJ, Rossiter CJ; O’Neil ACJ, para. 2-4. [www.cjc-ccm.gc.ca/cmslib/general/Camp_Docs/2017-03-08%20Reasons%20for%20voting%20against%20motion.pdf]

[23] 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.

[24] Constitution Act, 1867, sections 96 to 100; Todd Korol, Before Justice Camp, these two judges were recommended for removal, Globe and Mail, March 10, 2017; Alison Crawford, Justice Robin Camp resigns after judicial council recommends removal: Judicial watchdog finds judge’s conduct ‘manifestly and profoundly destructive of the concept of impartiality’, CBC News, March 9, 2017; Sean Fine, Judge in ‘knees together’ trial resigns after council recommends he be fired, Globe and Mail, March 9, 2017.

[25] Christie Blatchford, Despite his galling language, ‘knees-together’ judge got sex-assault ruling right, National Post, February 3, 2017.

[26] Report of the Canadian Judicial Council to the Minister of Justice (In the Matter of Section 65 of the Judges Act, and the Inquiry Committee convened by the Canadian Judicial Council to review the conduct of the Honourable Robin Camp of the Federal Court), Canadian Judicial Council, March 8, 2017, para. 35; 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.

[27] Report of the Canadian Judicial Council to the Minister of Justice (In the Matter of Section 65 of the Judges Act, and the Inquiry Committee convened by the Canadian Judicial Council to review the conduct of the Honourable Robin Camp of the Federal Court), Canadian Judicial Council, March 8, 2017, para. 35-36; 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.”

[28] 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.

[29] 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.). See, Report of the Canadian Judicial Council to the Minister of Justice (In the Matter of Section 65 of the Judges Act, and the Inquiry Committee convened by the Canadian Judicial Council to review the conduct of the Honourable Robin Camp of the Federal Court), Canadian Judicial Council, March 8, 2017, para. 46-47.

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

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

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

[33] 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.).

[34] Sean Fine, Judge in ‘knees together’ trial resigns after council recommends he be fired, Globe and Mail, March 9, 2017.

[35] 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.

[36] 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, 14-15, 26, 27.

[37] Bill Graveland, Accused in ‘knees together’ sex assault retrial found not guilty, Toronto Star, January 31, 2017; Christie Blatchford, Despite his galling language, ‘knees-together’ judge got sex-assault ruling right, National Post, February 3, 2017.

[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. 3, 82 (note: referred to as Attorney General of Alberta at para. 30).

[39] Report of the Canadian Judicial Council to the Minister of Justice (In the Matter of Section 65 of the Judges Act, and the Inquiry Committee convened by the Canadian Judicial Council to review the conduct of the Honourable Robin Camp of the Federal Court), Canadian Judicial Council, March 8, 2017, para. 4-5.

[40] Report of the Canadian Judicial Council to the Minister of Justice (In the Matter of Section 65 of the Judges Act, and the Inquiry Committee convened by the Canadian Judicial Council to review the conduct of the Honourable Robin Camp of the Federal Court), Canadian Judicial Council, March 8, 2017, para. 6. Also see, 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.

[41] Judges Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. J-1, s. 63(3); Report of the Canadian Judicial Council to the Minister of Justice (In the Matter of Section 65 of the Judges Act, and the Inquiry Committee convened by the Canadian Judicial Council to review the conduct of the Honourable Robin Camp of the Federal Court), Canadian Judicial Council, March 8, 2017, para. 4.

[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. 289.

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

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

[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. 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.

[46] Report of the Canadian Judicial Council to the Minister of Justice (In the Matter of Section 65 of the Judges Act, and the Inquiry Committee convened by the Canadian Judicial Council to review the conduct of the Honourable Robin Camp of the Federal Court), Canadian Judicial Council, March 8, 2017, para. 5.

[47] Report of the Canadian Judicial Council to the Minister of Justice (In the Matter of Section 65 of the Judges Act, and the Inquiry Committee convened by the Canadian Judicial Council to review the conduct of the Honourable Robin Camp of the Federal Court), Canadian Judicial Council, March 8, 2017, para. 7.

[48] Report of the Canadian Judicial Council to the Minister of Justice (In the Matter of Section 65 of the Judges Act, and the Inquiry Committee convened by the Canadian Judicial Council to review the conduct of the Honourable Robin Camp of the Federal Court), Canadian Judicial Council, March 8, 2017, para. 13. Also see, 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.

[49] Report of the Canadian Judicial Council to the Minister of Justice (In the Matter of Section 65 of the Judges Act, and the Inquiry Committee convened by the Canadian Judicial Council to review the conduct of the Honourable Robin Camp of the Federal Court), Canadian Judicial Council, March 8, 2017, para. 10.

[50] Report of the Canadian Judicial Council to the Minister of Justice (In the Matter of Section 65 of the Judges Act, and the Inquiry Committee convened by the Canadian Judicial Council to review the conduct of the Honourable Robin Camp of the Federal Court), Canadian Judicial Council, March 8, 2017, para. 11.

[51] Report of the Canadian Judicial Council to the Minister of Justice (In the Matter of Section 65 of the Judges Act, and the Inquiry Committee convened by the Canadian Judicial Council to review the conduct of the Honourable Robin Camp of the Federal Court), Canadian Judicial Council, March 8, 2017, para. 13.

[52] 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

[53] Report of the Canadian Judicial Council to the Minister of Justice (In the Matter of Section 65 of the Judges Act, and the Inquiry Committee convened by the Canadian Judicial Council to review the conduct of the Honourable Robin Camp of the Federal Court), Canadian Judicial Council, March 8, 2017, para. 13.

[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. 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. Also see, Report of the Canadian Judicial Council to the Minister of Justice (In the Matter of Section 65 of the Judges Act, and the Inquiry Committee convened by the Canadian Judicial Council to review the conduct of the Honourable Robin Camp of the Federal Court), Canadian Judicial Council, March 8, 2017, para. 17.

[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. 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.

[56] 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.

[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. 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.

[58] Report of the Canadian Judicial Council to the Minister of Justice (In the Matter of Section 65 of the Judges Act, and the Inquiry Committee convened by the Canadian Judicial Council to review the conduct of the Honourable Robin Camp of the Federal Court), Canadian Judicial Council, March 8, 2017, para. 14.

[59] Report of the Canadian Judicial Council to the Minister of Justice (In the Matter of Section 65 of the Judges Act, and the Inquiry Committee convened by the Canadian Judicial Council to review the conduct of the Honourable Robin Camp of the Federal Court), Canadian Judicial Council, March 8, 2017, para. 18.

[60] Report of the Canadian Judicial Council to the Minister of Justice (In the Matter of Section 65 of the Judges Act, and the Inquiry Committee convened by the Canadian Judicial Council to review the conduct of the Honourable Robin Camp of the Federal Court), Canadian Judicial Council, March 8, 2017, para. 19.

[61] Report of the Canadian Judicial Council to the Minister of Justice (In the Matter of Section 65 of the Judges Act, and the Inquiry Committee convened by the Canadian Judicial Council to review the conduct of the Honourable Robin Camp of the Federal Court), Canadian Judicial Council, March 8, 2017, para. 53.

[62] Report of the Canadian Judicial Council to the Minister of Justice (In the Matter of Section 65 of the Judges Act, and the Inquiry Committee convened by the Canadian Judicial Council to review the conduct of the Honourable Robin Camp of the Federal Court), Canadian Judicial Council, March 8, 2017, para. 23-26.

[63] Report of the Canadian Judicial Council to the Minister of Justice (In the Matter of Section 65 of the Judges Act, and the Inquiry Committee convened by the Canadian Judicial Council to review the conduct of the Honourable Robin Camp of the Federal Court), Canadian Judicial Council, March 8, 2017, para. 31-32.

[64] Report of the Canadian Judicial Council to the Minister of Justice (In the Matter of Section 65 of the Judges Act, and the Inquiry Committee convened by the Canadian Judicial Council to review the conduct of the Honourable Robin Camp of the Federal Court), Canadian Judicial Council, March 8, 2017, para. 33.

[65] Report of the Canadian Judicial Council to the Minister of Justice (In the Matter of Section 65 of the Judges Act, and the Inquiry Committee convened by the Canadian Judicial Council to review the conduct of the Honourable Robin Camp of the Federal Court), Canadian Judicial Council, March 8, 2017, para. 42.

[66] Therrien (Re), 2001 SCC 35, para. 151.

[67] Report of the Canadian Judicial Council to the Minister of Justice (In the Matter of Section 65 of the Judges Act, and the Inquiry Committee convened by the Canadian Judicial Council to review the conduct of the Honourable Robin Camp of the Federal Court), Canadian Judicial Council, March 8, 2017, para. 43.

[68] Therrien (Re), 2001 SCC 35, para. 109-110; Report of the Canadian Judicial Council to the Minister of Justice (In the Matter of Section 65 of the Judges Act, and the Inquiry Committee convened by the Canadian Judicial Council to review the conduct of the Honourable Robin Camp of the Federal Court), Canadian Judicial Council, March 8, 2017, para. 46.

[69] Report of the Canadian Judicial Council to the Minister of Justice (In the Matter of Section 65 of the Judges Act, and the Inquiry Committee convened by the Canadian Judicial Council to review the conduct of the Honourable Robin Camp of the Federal Court), Canadian Judicial Council, March 8, 2017, para. 47.

[70] Report of the Canadian Judicial Council to the Minister of Justice (In the Matter of Section 65 of the Judges Act, and the Inquiry Committee convened by the Canadian Judicial Council to review the conduct of the Honourable Robin Camp of the Federal Court), Canadian Judicial Council, March 8, 2017, para. 16.

[71] Report of the Canadian Judicial Council to the Minister of Justice (In the Matter of Section 65 of the Judges Act, and the Inquiry Committee convened by the Canadian Judicial Council to review the conduct of the Honourable Robin Camp of the Federal Court), Canadian Judicial Council, March 8, 2017, para. 53-54.

[72] 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.

[73] 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.

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

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

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

[77] 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]

[78] 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].

[79] 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.

[80] 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]

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

[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. 291.

[83] Eric Sigurdson, Canadian Judicial Council: Inquiry Committee recommends Federal Court Judge Robin Camp be removed from bench – controversial conduct and “knees together” comments caused irreparable damage to public confidence in judiciary and rule of law, Sigurdson Post, December 3, 2016.

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

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

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

[87] 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.

[88] Report of the Canadian Judicial Council to the Minister of Justice (In the Matter of Section 65 of the Judges Act, and the Inquiry Committee convened by the Canadian Judicial Council to review the conduct of the Honourable Robin Camp of the Federal Court), Canadian Judicial Council, March 8, 2017, para. 53. Also see, 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.

[89] 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).

[90] Constitution Act, 1867, sections 96 to 100; Alison Crawford, Justice Robin Camp resigns after judicial council recommends removal: Judicial watchdog finds judge’s conduct ‘manifestly and profoundly destructive of the concept of impartiality’, CBC News, March 9, 2017; Sean Fine, Judge in ‘knees together’ trial resigns after council recommends he be fired, Globe and Mail, March 9, 2017.

[91] Todd Korol, Before Justice Camp, these two judges were recommended for removal, Globe and Mail, March 10, 2017.

[92] James Farrell and Julian Burnside, Lawyers who help people who protect their rights aren’t the problem here, The Conversation, July 9, 2014, citing Caroline Kennedy; Rodrique Ngowi, JFK awards for ousted Iowa Justices, US diplomat, Yahoo News, May 7, 2012 – citing Caroline Kennedy: “The bedrock of our democracy is the rule of law and that means we have to have an independent judiciary, judges who can make decisions independent of the political winds that are blowing.”

[93] 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.