Moreau-Bérubé v. New Brunswick (Judicial Council)

Moreau-Bérubé v. New Brunswick (Judicial Council)
Collection
Supreme Court Judgments
Date
2002-02-07
Neutral citation
2002 SCC 11
Report
[2002] 1 SCR 249
Case number
28206
Judges
McLachlin, Beverley; L'Heureux-Dubé, Claire; Gonthier, Charles Doherty; Iacobucci, Frank; Major, John C.; Bastarache, Michel; Binnie, William Ian Corneil; Arbour, Louise; LeBel, Louis
On appeal from
New Brunswick
Subjects
Administrative law
Constitutional law
Notes
SCC Case Information: 28206
Decision Content
Moreau‑Bérubé v. New Brunswick (Judicial Council), [2002] 1 S.C.R. 249, 2002 SCC 11
Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province
of New Brunswick, as represented by the Office
of the Executive Council, and
the Judicial Council
Appellants
v.
Judge Jocelyne Moreau‑Bérubé Respondent
Indexed as: Moreau‑Bérubé v. New Brunswick (Judicial Council)
Neutral citation: 2002 SCC 11.
File No.: 28206.
2001: June 19; 2002: February 7.
Present: McLachlin C.J. and L’Heureux‑Dubé, Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel JJ.
on appeal from the court of appeal for new brunswick
Administrative law -- Judicial review -- Standard of review -- Natural justice -- Rules of procedural fairness -- Provincial Judicial Council recommending that Provincial Court judge be removed from office because of statements she made in court -- Applicable standard of review of Council’s decision -- Whether Council violated rules of procedural fairness by imposing penalty more severe than that recommended by inquiry panel -- Whether Council bound to follow findings of inquiry panel -- Whether Council’s decision to recommend removal of judge justified ‑‑ Provincial Court Act, R.S.N.B. 1973, c. P‑21, s. 6.11(4).
Constitutional law -- Judicial independence -- Security of tenure of judges -- Provincial legislation empowering Lieutenant-Governor in Council to remove Provincial Court judge without first addressing Legislative Assembly -- Whether procedure set out in legislation to sanction misconduct of Provincial Court judges meets minimal standards required to ensure respect for principle of judicial independence -- Provincial Court Act, R.S.N.B. 1973, c. P‑21, s. 6.11(8).
The respondent, a judge of the New Brunswick Provincial Court, made derogatory comments about the residents of the Acadian Peninsula while presiding over a sentencing hearing. Three days later, while presiding in an unrelated hearing, she made an apology. The Judicial Council received several complaints alleging misconduct and an inability on the part of the respondent to continue to perform her duties as a Provincial Court judge. The majority of a three‑member inquiry panel, appointed to conduct an inquiry and report findings, concluded that the respondent’s comments did constitute misconduct, but that she was still able to perform her duties as a judge. They recommended that she receive a reprimand. Under s. 6.11(4) of the Provincial Court Act, the Council was then required to make a decision “[b]ased on the findings contained in the [panel’s] report”. Despite the panel’s findings the Council concluded that the respondent’s remarks created a reasonable apprehension of bias and a loss of the public trust and recommended that she be removed from her office as judge. The respondent filed an application for judicial review of the Council’s decision. The Court of Queen’s Bench quashed the Council’s decision on the grounds that the rules of natural justice had been breached and that the Council had exceeded its jurisdiction by ignoring findings of fact made by the panel. The majority of the Court of Appeal upheld that decision.
Held: The appeal should be allowed and the decision of the New Brunswick Judicial Council should be restored.
This Court’s jurisprudence has evolved to endorse a pragmatic and functional approach to determining the proper standard of review for a decision from an administrative tribunal. Here, a consideration of the relevant factors leads to the conclusion that a high degree of deference should be afforded to the Judicial Council’s decisions.
A core principle of judicial independence is the liberty of the judge to hear and decide cases without fear of external reproach. Judicial councils as well as reviewing courts must remain acutely alive to the high level of protection that applies to comments made by judges in the conduct of court proceedings. However, while judges must be free to speak in their judicial capacity, and must be perceived to speak freely, there will unavoidably be occasions where their actions will be called into question. 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 and that the harm alleged is not curable by the appeal process. Part of the expertise of the Judicial Council lies in its appreciation of the distinction between impugned judicial actions that can be dealt with through a 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 Provincial Court Act. A council composed primarily of judges, alive to the delicate balance between judicial independence and judicial integrity, is eminently qualified to render a collegial decision regarding the conduct of a judge. A single judge sitting in judicial review of a decision of the Council would not enjoy a legal or judicial advantage.
While the proper interpretation of s. 6.11(4) of the Act, as to whether it binds the Judicial Council to the findings of fact made by the inquiry panel, is a question of law normally attracting a “correctness” standard of review, questions of law arising from the interpretation of a statute within the tribunal’s area of expertise will also attract some deference where other factors of the pragmatic and functional analysis suggest such deference is the legislative intention. In this case, the Council was interpreting an operational provision within its own statute, which conferred upon it a special and unique decision‑making role within the justice system. The Council must be regarded as having a reasonable degree of specialization and a high level of expertise. Reviewing courts should not intervene unless the interpretation adopted by the Council is not one that the provision can reasonably bear. Applying the proper standard of review to the interpretation given by the Council to the scope of its mandate based on its interpretation of s. 6.11(4), that standard being one of reasonableness simpliciter, the reviewing judge and the majority of the Court of Appeal should not have substituted their interpretation of that provision for the one adopted by the Council. In any event the interpretation given by the Council should be upheld even on a correctness standard. To suggest that the words “based on” in s. 6.11(4) have a binding effect creates a number of inconsistencies and incongruities within the Act. Moreover, any delegation of decision‑making power from a tribunal to another body must be clearly and expressly authorized by statute. In this case, the Act clearly indicates that the Council is to make the decision with regard to the sanction, if any, that should be imposed. The words “based on” cannot be read to permit an abdication of that authority.
The Council’s ultimate decision to recommend the respondent’s removal from office, which is a question of mixed law and fact, was justifiable. The Council must serve its purpose with some degree of authority and finality, and its conclusions on questions of mixed law and fact should be afforded a high degree of deference and should not be interfered with unless they are patently unreasonable. It was within the Council’s power to draw its own conclusions, and, in light of the sweeping and generalized nature of the respondent’s derogatory comments, the conclusion reached by the Council was not patently unreasonable. Even on a standard of reasonableness simpliciter, there is no basis to interfere with the Council’s decision.
Evaluating whether procedural fairness has been adhered to by a tribunal requires an assessment of the procedures and safeguards required in a particular situation. The duty to comply with the rules of natural justice and to follow rules of procedural fairness extends to all administrative bodies acting under statutory authority. The Council did not violate the respondent’s right to be heard by not expressly informing her that they might impose a sanction clearly open to them under the Act. Acknowledging that the nature of these disciplinary proceedings imposes on the Council a stringent duty to act fairly, there was no breach of the rules of natural justice in this case.
The procedure set forth by the Act to sanction misconduct of a Provincial Court judge does meet the minimal standards required to ensure respect for the principle of judicial independence.
Cases Cited
Followed: Pushpanathan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 982; Therrien (Re), [2001] 2 S.C.R. 3, 2001 SCC 35; referred to: Michaud v. Institut des comptables agréés (N.‑B.) (1994), 149 N.B.R. (2d) 328; College of Physicians and Surgeons (Ont.) v. Petrie (1989), 32 O.A.C. 248; Jackson v. Saint John Regional Hospital (1993), 136 N.B.R. (2d) 64; Valente v. The Queen, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 673; Reference re Remuneration of Judges of the Provincial Court of Prince Edward Island, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 3; Pasiechnyk v. Saskatchewan (Workers’ Compensation Board), [1997] 2 S.C.R. 890; Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817; Canada (Director of Investigation and Research) v. Southam Inc., [1997] 1 S.C.R. 748; U.E.S., Local 298 v. Bibeault, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 1048; Ruffo v. Conseil de la magistrature, [1995] 4 S.C.R. 267; R. v. Lippé, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 114; Beauregard v. Canada, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 56; Vriend v. Alberta (1996), 132 D.L.R. (4th) 595; R. v. Ewanchuk (1998), 13 C.R. (5th) 324; Alberta (Provincial Court Judge) v. Alberta (Provincial Court Chief Judge) (1999), 71 Alta. L.R. (3d) 214, 1999 ABQB 309, aff’d (2000), 192 D.L.R. (4th) 540, 2000 ABCA 241; Knight v. Indian Head School Division No. 19, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 653; Nicholson v. Haldimand‑Norfolk Regional Board of Commissioners of Police, [1979] 1 S.C.R. 311; Cardinal v. Director of Kent Institution, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 643; Kane v. Board of Governors of the University of British Columbia, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 1105; Reference re Canada Assistance Plan (B.C.), [1991] 2 S.C.R. 525.
Statutes and Regulations Cited
Inquiries Act, R.S.N.B. 1973, c. I‑11, s. 8.
Provincial Court Act, R.S.N.B. 1973, c. P‑21 [am. 1987, c. 45], ss. 6 [rep. & sub. 1985, c. 66, s. 2], 6.1(1) [am. 1990, c. 21, s. 1], 6.6(1), (3), 6.7(1) to (5), 6.8(1), 6.9(1) [idem, s. 2], (7), (8), (10), 6.10(1), (3), 6.11(1) to (4), (8).
Authors Cited
Brown, Donald J. M., and John M. Evans. Judicial Review of Administrative Action in Canada, vol. 1. Toronto: Canvasback, 1998 (loose‑leaf updated 2001, release 2).
Canada. Commission of Inquiry Re: The Hon. Mr. Justice Leo A. Landreville. Inquiry Re: The Honourable Justice Leo A. Landreville. Ottawa: The Commission, 1966.
Canada. Journals of the House of Commons, vol. LXXII, 5th Sess., 17th Parl., January 26, 1934, p. 18.
Canadian Judicial Council. Inquiry Committee Appointed under subsection 63(1) of the Judges Act . Report to the Canadian Judicial Council by the Inquiry Committee appointed under subsection 63(1) of the Judges Act to conduct a public inquiry into the conduct of Mr. Justice Jean Bienvenue of the Superior Court of Quebec in R. v. T. Théberge. Ottawa: The Council, 1996.
Canadian Judicial Council. Inquiry Committee Established Pursuant to Subsection 63(1) of the Judges Act . Report to the Canadian Judicial Council of the Inquiry Committee Established Pursuant to Subsection 63(1) of the Judges Act at the Request of the Attorney General of Nova Scotia. Ottawa: The Council, 1990.
de Smith, Stanley A. Judicial Review of Administrative Action, 4th ed. London: Stevens, 1980.
Friedland, Martin L. A Place Apart: Judicial Independence and Accountability in Canada. Ottawa: Canadian Judicial Council, 1995.
Shapiro, Debra. “Legitimate Expectation and its Application to Canadian Immigration Law” (1992), 8 J. L. & Social Pol’y 282.
APPEAL from a judgment of the New Brunswick Court of Appeal (2000), 233 N.B.R. (2d) 205, 194 D.L.R. (4th) 664, [2000] N.B.J. No. 368 (QL), 2000 NBCA 12, affirming a decision of the Court of Queen’s Bench (1999), 218 N.B.R. (2d) 256, [1999] N.B.J. No. 320 (QL). Appeal allowed.
Cedric L. Haines, for the appellant Her Majesty the Queen in Right of New Brunswick.
J. C. Marc Richard and Chantal A. Thibodeau, for the appellant the Judicial Council.
Anne E. Bertrand, Paul Bertrand and Michael Phelan, for the respondent.
The judgment of the Court was delivered by
Arbour J. --
I. Introduction
1 This appeal involves a decision of the Judicial Council of New Brunswick (“the Council”) which recommended the removal from office of a Provincial Court judge because of statements she made in court, while presiding over a sentencing hearing. The Council concluded that her remarks created a reasonable apprehension of bias and a loss of the public trust. This Court must first establish the applicable standard of review of the Council’s decision. We must then decide whether the Council violated certain rules of procedural fairness by imposing a penalty more severe than that recommended by an inquiry panel, whether and to what extent the Council was statutorily bound to follow findings of an inquiry panel, and whether the Council’s final decision to recommend the removal of the judge was justified in light of the evidence at its disposal. For reasons that are set out in full below, I have concluded that the Council was entitled to decide as it did and that its decision should be restored.
II. Relevant Statutory Provisions
2 Provincial Court Act, R.S.N.B. 1973, c. P-21
6 Subject to this Act, a judge holds office during good behaviour and may be removed from office only for misconduct, neglect of duty or inability to perform his duties.
6.1(1) There is hereby continued a Judicial Council which shall be composed of
(a) the Chief Justice of New Brunswick, who shall be chairman,
(b) a judge of The Court of Appeal of New Brunswick, who shall be appointed by the Chief Justice of New Brunswick and who shall be the vice-chairman,
(c) three judges of The Court of Queen’s Bench of New Brunswick who shall be appointed by the Chief Justice of that Court, of whom the Chief Justice of The Court of Queen’s Bench of New Brunswick may be one of the appointees,
(d) two judges other than the chief judge or associate chief judge, who shall be appointed by the chief judge, and
(e) three other persons who shall be appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council.
. . .
6.6(1) The Judicial Council shall receive and the chairman shall refer to the chief judge for investigation all written communications suggesting any misconduct, neglect of duty or inability to perform duties on the part of a judge.
. . .
6.6(3) Where a written communication comes to the attention of the chief judge, whether by way of referral from the chairman or otherwise, suggesting any misconduct, neglect of duty or inability to perform duties on the part of a judge, the chief judge shall investigate the matter.
6.7(1) The chairman shall designate one or more members of the Judicial Council for the purpose of receiving reports referred to in this section.
6.7(2) Where a written communication is received by the chief judge or associate chief judge, whether by way of referral from the chairman or otherwise, the chief judge or associate chief judge, as the case may be, shall within fifteen days after receiving the written communication, or within such longer period as the chairman permits, report on the results of the investigation to a member of the Judicial Council who has been designated by the chairman for that purpose.
6.7(3) Based upon the report, the member of the Judicial Council who receives the report shall, within ten days after receiving the report, recommend to the chairman whether or not an inquiry should be held.
6.7(4) A recommendation that an inquiry not be held is subject to review by the Judicial Council which may determine that an inquiry should be held.
6.7(5) A recommendation that an inquiry be held is not subject to review by the Judicial Council.
6.8(1) At any time after the receipt of a written communication suggesting misconduct, neglect of duty or inability to perform duties on the part of a judge, the Judicial Council may suspend the judge whose conduct is in question from the performance of the judge’s duties with pay, pending the outcome of an investigation, inquiry or formal hearing, and may lift the suspension prior to the conclusion of an investigation, inquiry or formal hearing, where a change in circumstances warrants the lifting of the suspension.
. . .
6.9(1) Where an inquiry is recommended under subsection 6.7(3) or where the Judicial Council determines on review under subsection 6.7(4) that an inquiry should be held, the chairman shall
(a) appoint a panel consisting of three members of the Judicial Council. . . .
(b) appoint a barrister to act as counsel to the panel, and
(c) designate one of the members of the panel, other than a judge of the court, as the panel chairman.
. . .
6.9(7) The counsel to the panel shall inquire into the suggestions of misconduct, neglect of duty or inability to perform duties on the part of a judge received in a written communication referred to in section 6.6 for the purpose of gathering all information that may be relevant to preparing a formal complaint.
6.9(8) The counsel to the panel shall present the findings to the panel who shall then determine whether there is sufficient evidence to warrant holding a formal hearing.
. . .
6.9(10) Where the panel determines that there is sufficient evidence to warrant holding a formal hearing, the panel shall advise the Judicial Council that a formal hearing is to be conducted and shall instruct the counsel to the panel to prepare a formal complaint setting forth the allegations of misconduct, neglect of duty or inability to perform duties against the judge whose conduct is in question.
. . .
6.10(1) Where the panel has made a determination under subsection 6.9(10), it shall conduct a formal hearing respecting the allegations set forth in the formal complaint referred to in subsection 6.9(10) and it has all the powers of a commissioner under the Inquiries Act .
. . .
6.10(3) Notice of the formal hearing together with a copy of the formal complaint referred to in subsection 6.9(10) shall be served on the judge whose conduct is in question in accordance with the regulations.
. . .
6.11(1) After the formal hearing, the panel shall report to the chairman its findings of fact and its findings as to the allegations of misconduct, neglect of duty or inability to perform duties of the judge whose conduct is in question.
6.11(2) The chairman shall place the report of the panel before the Judicial Council for a decision.
6.11(3) The Judicial Council shall give a copy of the report of the findings of the panel to the judge whose conduct is in question and shall advise the judge of the judge’s right to make representations to it either in person or through counsel and either orally or in writing, respecting the report prior to the taking of action by the Judicial Council under subsection (4).
6.11(4) Based on the findings contained in the report and the representations, if any, made under subsection (3), the Judicial Council may
(a) dismiss the complaint,
(b) direct the chief judge to issue a reprimand to the judge with such conditions as the Judicial Council considers appropriate,
(c) where the conduct of the chief judge is in question, reprimand the chief judge with such conditions as the Judicial Council considers appropriate, or
(d) recommend to the Lieutenant‑Governor in Council that the judge be removed from office.
. . .
6.11(8) The Lieutenant‑Governor in Council shall, on receipt of the Judicial Council’s recommendation under paragraph (4)(d), remove the judge from office.
III. Facts
3 The respondent, a judge of the New Brunswick Provincial Court, was presiding over a sentencing hearing in R. v. LeBreton, [1998] N.B.J. No. 120 (QL). The two accused had been found guilty of several charges, including breaking and entering and theft, and both had extensive criminal records. When passing sentence on February 16, 1998, the respondent said this:
[translation] These are people who live on welfare and we’re the ones who support them; they are on drugs and they are drunk day in and day out. They steal from us left, right and centre and any which way, they find others as crooked as they are to buy the stolen property. It’s a pitiful sight. If a survey were taken in the Acadian Peninsula, of the honest people as against the dishonest people, I have the impression that the dishonest people would win. We have now got to the point where we can no longer trust our neighbour next door or across the street. In the area where I live, I wonder whether I’m not myself surrounded by crooks. And, that is how people live in the Peninsula, but we point the finger at outsiders. Ah, we don’t like to be singled out in the Peninsula. And it makes me sad to say this because I live in the Peninsula now. It’s my home. But look at the honest people in the Peninsula, they are very few and far between, and they are becoming fewer and fewer. And do you think these people care that it cost hundreds and thousands of dollars to repair that? They don't give a damn. Are they going to pay for it? No, not a dime. All the money is spent on coke. These people, they don’t give a damn. It doesn't bother them one bit, they just -- do you think you are going to arouse their sorrow and sympathy by saying that it costs hundreds and thousands of dollars. We, it bothers us because we are the ones who pay, because we have to wake up every morning and go to work. When we receive our paycheck, three quarters are taken away to support these people. They, don't care. They have nothing to do. They party all day and party all night and that's all they do. They don’t care, not one bit. We on the other hand, we have to care because it is our property. These people, if they don’t have enough they go to welfare and they get even more and that is how it works. So, I do not want to interrupt you, but I understand what you mean when you say that it cost thousands of dollars and counsel here understand, but the type of people we are dealing with here today in this courtroom, they couldn’t care less. Whether it cost one thousand dollars to repair it or whether it cost only two cents, whether it requires six police officers to investigate, they find it funny. Their mentality is that “The pigs will not be at Tim’s while they are chasing after us.”
(As reproduced in the New Brunswick Court of Appeal judgment, Conseil de la magistrature (N.B.) v. Moreau-Bérubé (2000), 233 N.B.R. (2d) 205, 2000 NBCA 12, at para. 5, hereinafter Moreau-Bérubé (N.B.C.A.).)
4 Three days later, while presiding in an unrelated hearing, Judge Moreau-Bérubé made this apology:
[translation] On Monday of this week, at the sentencing hearing of two gentlemen, I made certain remarks concerning honesty and dishonesty. I should point out that at the time, unlike this morning, I was speaking without prepared notes.
After court on Monday, in rethinking about my remarks, I quickly realized that I had made a serious mistake and that the words I had spoken in open court were not those that I intended to speak and that I had in mind. In other words, my words went beyond my thinking and I misspoke myself. I certainly had no intention of impugning the honesty of my fellow citizens of the Acadian Peninsula. As a matter of fact, in a case preceding that of those two gentlemen, I had spoken of the kindness and generosity of people in this area who had given large sums of money to somebody who defrauded them. By my comments, I wanted to refer only to those directly or indirectly involved in these types of offences.
Fully realizing my mistake, at the Tuesday sentencing hearing, I tried to correct my mistake, but it is obvious to me that I did not make myself quite clear or precise and that some of my statements of Tuesday were not understood.
So, this morning, I very candidly, clearly and specifically offer my most sincere and profound apology to the people of the Acadian Peninsula and, in particular, to those I have offended. It was never my intention, because I am particularly concerned about the welfare of the people of this area.
I have never doubted and I have no doubt about the honesty and integrity of the people of the Acadian Peninsula. I made a huge mistake, I am human. I am profoundly sorry and I apologize sincerely. Thank you.
(As reproduced in Moreau-Bérubé (N.B.C.A.), supra, at para. 6.)
5 The Judicial Council, a body created under the Provincial Court Act, R.S.N.B. 1973, c. P-21, received several complaints about Judge Moreau-Bérubé’s comments of February 16, 1998. These complaints alleged misconduct and that Judge Moreau-Bérubé was unable, in light of her comments, to continue to perform her duties as a Provincial Court judge. The complaints were investigated by the Chief Judge and reported to a designated member of the Council, pursuant to ss. 6.6(3) and 6.7(2) respectively. Guided by ss. 6.7(3), 6.9(1), 6.9(7) and 6.9(8) of the Act, the designated Council member recommended that an inquiry be held; a three-member inquiry panel was appointed, chaired by Mr. Justice Riordon, a judge of the New Brunswick Court of Queen’s Bench, and also composed of Judge Pérusse of the Provincial Court and Ms. Susan Calhoun, and the panel determined that there was sufficient evidence to warrant a formal hearing. A formal complaint was drafted by the inquiry panel, pursuant to s. 6.9(10) of the Act, as follows:
[translation] 1. THAT Her Honour Judge Jocelyne J. Moreau-Bérubé committed a misconduct on or about February 16, 1998, at Tracadie-Sheila, in the province of New Brunswick, as a result of remarks she made about the honesty of residents of the Acadian Peninsula at a sitting of the Provincial Court in the Acadian Peninsula.
2. THAT as a result of the remarks she made about the honesty of the residents of the Acadian Peninsula, Her Honour Judge Jocelyne J. Moreau-Bérubé is no longer able to perform her duties as a judge.
(As reproduced in Moreau-Bérubé (N.B.C.A.), supra, at para. 12.)
6 As dictated by s. 6.11(1) of the Act, the panel was then required to conduct an inquiry and report its findings “of fact and its findings as to the allegations of misconduct, neglect of duty or inability to perform duties of the judge whose conduct is in question”. To this end, the panel was required under s. 6.10(1) to hear and accept any relevant evidence, even if not admissible under normal trial rules within the province of New Brunswick (as per s. 8 of the Inquiries Act, R.S.N.B. 1973, c. I-11). The panel heard 17 witnesses, and 25 documents were filed.
7 The majority of the panel (Riordon J. and Ms. Susan Calhoun) made the following relevant findings of fact:
[translation] I must therefore conclude that the comments made by Judge Moreau-Bérubé during a trial in Tracadie-Sheila on February 16, 1998 constitute inappropriate judicial expression. The remarks were incorrect, useless, insensitive, insulting, derogatory, aggressive and inappropriate. That they were made by a judge makes them even more inappropriate and aggressive. My conclusion is therefore that the remarks made by Judge Moreau-Bérubé constitute and amount to misconduct on her part. By uttering those remarks, Judge Moreau-Bérubé exceeded what is considered appropriate judicial conduct and made comments denigrating the honesty of the residents of the Acadian Peninsula while she was presiding a trial.
. . .
In determining whether Judge Moreau-Bérubé was biassed in behaving the way she did, which would lead to a lack of public confidence in her, we have to consider whether she has established beliefs which may be an obstacle in deciding cases impartially and with an open mind. We have to determine if the inappropriate remarks made in this case amount to judicial misconduct warranting her removal from office.
In applying the test, taking into account all the evidence and interpretations concerning this complaint, it is my finding that the conduct of Judge Jocelyne J. Moreau-Bérubé does not warrant her removal from office.
. . .
I find that bias or the appearance of bias has not been established nor have the consequences leading to a loss of public confidence.
Upon considering all of the evidence adduced, I am not ready to find that Judge Moreau-Bérubé has an established belief or conviction that residents of the Acadian Peninsula are dishonest nor that her neighbours are not trustworthy nor even that there are few honest people in the Acadian Peninsula.
It has not been established upon my perusal of all this evidence that Judge Moreau-Bérubé holds a strong belief detrimental or potentially detrimental to her impartiality in deciding various cases.
(As reproduced in Moreau-Bérubé (N.B.C.A.), supra, at para. 22 (emphasis deleted).)
8 The majority of the panel concluded that the comments uttered by Judge Moreau-Bérubé did constitute misconduct, but that she was still able to perform her duties as a judge. They recommended that Judge Moreau-Bérubé should receive a reprimand. The minority (Judge Pérusse) found that the comments, in the circumstances of the case, did not constitute misconduct. The panel was unanimous that Judge Moreau-Bérubé was able to continue exercising her judicial duties.
9 Pursuant to ss. 6.11(2) and 6.11(3) of the Act, the report of the inquiry panel was presented to the Council for a decision, and a copy was sent to Judge Moreau-Bérubé so that she could make informed representations before the Council. The Council received her submissions pursuant to s. 6.11(3) of the Act, and her counsel argued that the formal complaint should be dismissed.
10 Despite findings by the panel that Judge Moreau-Bérubé did not have a pre‑established belief or conviction that residents of the Acadian Peninsula are dishonest or untrustworthy, the Council characterized the issue before it as follows:
[translation] . . . given the finding of misconduct by the panel, the real issue before the Council is whether there is a reasonable apprehension that Judge Moreau-Bérubé would not be able to act in a completely impartial manner in the performance of her duties because of not being able to set aside the pre-conceived opinions and ideas that she expressed when making a determination based on the evidence in a given case.
(As reproduced in Conseil de la magistrature (N.-B.) v. Moreau-Bérubé (1999), 218 N.B.R. (2d) 256, at para. 39 (emphasis deleted), hereinafter Moreau-Bérubé (N.B.Q.B.).)
11 Section 6.11(4) dictates that, “[b]ased on the findings contained in the report and the representations, if any, made under subsection (3), the Judicial Council may
(a) dismiss the complaint,
(b) direct the chief judge to issue a reprimand to the judge with such conditions as the Judicial Council considers appropriate,
(c) where the conduct of the chief judge is in question, reprimand the chief judge with such conditions as the Judicial Council considers appropriate, or
(d) recommend to the Lieutenant‑Governor in Council that the judge be removed from office.”
12 The Council recommended that Judge Moreau-Bérubé be removed from her office as judge. In doing so, the Council followed the criterion established with regard to apprehension of bias in the Marshall Report (Report to the Canadian Judicial Council of the Inquiry Committee Established Pursuant to Subsection 63(1) of the Judges Act at the Request of the Attorney General of Nova Scotia (August 1990)) and asked [translation] “[i]s 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?” (As reproduced in Moreau-Bérubé (N.B.C.A.), supra, at para. 22.) Based on these criteria, and on a series of factors that, in its view, a reasonable observer would consider in rendering an informed judgment about an apprehension of bias, the Council came to the following conclusion:
[translation] Taking into account all the circumstances surrounding this matter and applying the foregoing tests and the principles of judicial impartiality and independence established by the Supreme Court of Canada in the cases referred to, we believe that in the event that Judge Moreau-Bérubé were to preside over a trial, a reasonable and well-informed person would conclude that the misconduct of the judge has undermined public confidence in her and would have a reasonable apprehension that she would not perform her duties with the impartiality that the public is entitled to expect from a judge.
Accordingly, we recommend that she be removed from office.
(As reproduced in Moreau-Bérubé (N.B.C.A.), supra, at para. 90.)
13 After becoming aware of the Council’s decision, the respondent wrote the provincial Cabinet, asking for a stay of her removal while she applied for judicial review. Nevertheless, the Cabinet removed the judge pursuant to s. 6.11(8), which states:
The Lieutenant-Governor in Council shall, on receipt of the Judicial Council’s recommendation under paragraph (4)(d), remove the judge from office.
14 The respondent filed an application for judicial review of the Council’s decision before the New Brunswick Court of Queen’s Bench, and the Council’s recommendation was quashed. The majority of the New Brunswick Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal (Rice and Ryan JJ.A.), Drapeau J.A. dissenting.
IV. The Courts Below
A. New Brunswick Court of Queen’s Bench (1999), 218 N.B.R. (2d) 256
15 The application for judicial review of the Council’s decision came before Angers J. of the New Brunswick Court of Queen’s Bench. The Judicial Council’s decision was quashed on two main grounds. First, Angers J. found that the rules of natural justice, in particular the principle of audi alteram partem, had been breached since the respondent had never been advised that a penalty more severe than the one recommended by the panel could be imposed by the Council. Angers J. suggested that it was a fundamental principle that a tribunal imposing a more substantial penalty than the one which had been recommended on a joint submission, or, as in this case, by a panel committee, should indicate that it is considering such a penalty and request submissions thereon (Michaud v. Institut des comptables agréés (N.‑B.) (1994), 149 N.B.R. (2d) 328 (C.A.); College of Physicians and Surgeons (Ont.) v. Petrie (1989), 32 O.A.C. 248 (Div. Ct.); Jackson v. Saint John Regional Hospital (1993), 136 N.B.R. (2d) 64 (C.A.); S. A. de Smith, Judicial Review of Administrative Action (4th ed. 1980), at pp. 212-13).
16 Angers J. found that Judge Moreau-Bérubé had no reason to suspect that dismissal was being considered as a possible sanction. Dismissal had not been suggested during the hearing, and she had never been expressly informed that it was being considered. Moreover, while the Council had the discretion to suspend Judge Moreau-Bérubé pending its decision, she had been allowed to continue hearing cases for some 14 months after the impugned remarks were made (although, as I note later, she had been reassigned to a different district). Angers J. concluded it was a breach of natural justice not to have requested her to make submissions with the understanding that a dismissal was being considered. As he stated at para. 27:
[translation] . . . the defence or acceptance of a reprimand is one thing, removal from office is an entirely different matter. It is inconceivable to me that a judge would be removed from office without having been able to defend against such action since he or she did not receive any indication of such threat, except as a mere possibility under the Act.
17 As the second ground for quashing the decision of the Council, Angers J. found that the Council had exceeded its jurisdiction by ignoring findings of fact made by the panel, which included the finding that Judge Moreau-Bérubé was able to continue performing her judicial duties. Based on s. 6 of the Act, Angers J. found that the Council has the power to remove a judge simply for misconduct, and does not have to base a dismissal on a finding by the panel that the judge is unable to perform her duties as a judge. However, given that the Council had identified as a basis for her dismissal that Judge Moreau-Bérubé [translation] “would not be able to act in a completely impartial manner in the performance of her duties because of not being able to set aside the pre-conceived opinions and ideas that she expressed when making a determination based on the evidence in a given case” (see Moreau-Bérubé (N.B.Q.B.), supra, at para. 39 (emphasis deleted)), Angers J. concluded the Council had overruled certain findings of fact made by the panel. In this respect, Angers J. stated, at para. 41-42:
[translation] Now, the panel had expressly concluded that the judge did not have preconceived notions, that she did not really believe what she had said, that she did not have any "firm belief or conviction" in the remarks she had made. The remarks were spontaneous and off the cuff, in the context of passing sentence at the end of a particularly busy day.
In my opinion, under the Act, the Council was bound by the panel’s findings of fact and therefore it exceeded its jurisdiction in finding that the judge had expressed "pre‑conceived opinions or beliefs".
18 Although he concluded that proper notice had not been given to the Attorney General, as required, Angers J. briefly discussed the constitutionality of the Provincial Court Act provisions which grant the power to remove a judge from office. He held the matter had been settled in Valente v. The Queen, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 673, and Reference re Remuneration of Judges of the Provincial Court of Prince Edward Island, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 3, where this Court recognized that removal of a provincial court judge from office did not have to be done by a legislative or executive body, and that a system such as the one in New Brunswick where the Lieutenant-Governor in Council is bound by a decision of the Judicial Council does not violate security of tenure of provincial court judges.
B. New Brunswick Court of Appeal (2000), 233 N.B.R. (2d) 205, 2000 NBCA 12
(1) Majority Judgment (Rice and Ryan JJ.A.)
19 The decision of Angers J. was appealed to the New Brunswick Court of Appeal on a number of grounds, including the following two:
1. The judge committed an error in law in finding that the Council had exceeded its jurisdiction and violated the rules of natural justice by not respecting the audi alteram partem rule.
2. The judge committed an error in law by concluding the Council had exceeded its jurisdiction in ignoring certain findings of fact made by the inquiry panel.
20 On the first issue, the majority of the Court of Appeal concluded at para. 34:
[translation] . . . the reviewing judge was right in concluding that the Council had not observed this principle of natural justice. In my opinion, given the circumstances of this matter, the Council had to advise Judge Moreau-Bérubé that the penalty recommended by the panel could be disregarded by the Council and that she was liable to a more substantial penalty such as removal from office.
21 With regard to the second gr