File a Judge Complaint

Use this form to report conduct by a current or former Canadian judge, justice of the peace, judicial officer, or adjudicator that may affect the fairness of a proceeding, the appearance or reality of impartiality, the integrity of the judicial process, or public confidence in the administration of justice.

The Stinchcombe List documents potential disclosure and impeachment material concerning participants in the Canadian justice system. Judicial conduct may be relevant when it affects the adjudication of disclosure disputes, the treatment of witnesses or parties, the accuracy of the court record, the enforcement of constitutional rights, or the integrity of criminal proceedings.

A complaint may be submitted before a judicial council, chief justice, appellate court, attorney general, legislature, or other authority has issued a final decision. The procedural status of the matter must be accurately identified.

Who May Be the Subject of a Judicial Complaint

A complaint may concern a current or former:

• Federally appointed judge;
• Provincial or territorial court judge;
• Superior court judge;
• Court of appeal judge;
• Justice of the peace;
• Master, associate judge, or judicial case manager;
• Military judge;
• Coroner acting in an adjudicative capacity;
• Administrative tribunal member;
• Regulatory adjudicator;
• Disciplinary hearing officer;
• Judicial inquiry commissioner;
• Other public official exercising adjudicative or quasi-judicial authority.

The complaint should identify the judicial officer as precisely as possible. Include the person’s full name, title, court or tribunal, province or territory, hearing location, court file number, and date of the relevant conduct.

Conduct That May Be Reported

A complaint may address documented conduct that could reasonably affect an assessment of the judicial officer’s impartiality, integrity, candour, fairness, temperament, independence, or compliance with judicial duties.

Potentially relevant conduct includes:

• Actual, apparent, or undisclosed bias;
• Prejudgment of facts, credibility, liability, guilt, sentence, or remedy;
• Failure to disclose a material conflict of interest;
• Refusal to recuse despite a substantial conflict or reasonable apprehension of bias;
• Ex parte communication with a party, lawyer, prosecutor, witness, investigator, government official, or interested person;
• Improper coordination with a prosecutor, police officer, government lawyer, or opposing party;
• Retaliation against a litigant, accused person, lawyer, witness, journalist, complainant, or whistleblower;
• Abuse or threatened abuse of contempt powers;
• Intimidating, degrading, discriminatory, hostile, or coercive courtroom conduct;
• Misleading statements concerning the evidence, record, procedural history, or applicable law;
• Material alteration or mischaracterization of testimony, submissions, exhibits, or prior rulings;
• Failure to correct a materially inaccurate court record;
• Improper interference with disclosure;
• Denial of meaningful access to evidence or court records;
• Obstruction of a party’s ability to make full answer and defence;
• Improper restriction of cross-examination;
• Unequal treatment of similarly situated parties;
• Improper favouritism toward the Crown, police, government, institutional litigants, or private parties;
• Failure to permit a party to be heard on a material issue;
• Improper refusal to receive, review, or rule upon evidence or submissions;
• Unexplained or strategically prejudicial delay;
• Improper political activity or partisan intervention;
• Misuse of judicial office, staff, facilities, information, or prestige;
• Public commentary capable of prejudicing a pending or foreseeable proceeding;
• Improper communication with the media concerning a matter before the court;
• Failure to maintain required independence from government, police, prosecutors, or private interests;
• Improper receipt of gifts, benefits, favours, loans, hospitality, or preferential treatment;
• Breach of confidentiality or misuse of sealed information;
• Improper handling of publication bans, protected identities, privileged records, or confidential evidence;
• Misrepresentation of qualifications, prior conduct, relationships, or financial interests;
• Conduct resulting in appellate criticism, recusal, mistrial, rehearing, overturned judgment, judicial discipline, or removal proceedings;
• Repeated conduct demonstrating a potentially relevant pattern;
• Administrative concealment, ratification, or failure to correct known judicial misconduct.

The list is not exhaustive. Conduct may be relevant even when it does not result in discipline, reversal, recusal, or an express finding of misconduct.

Judicial Misconduct and Legal Error Are Different

A disagreement with a judgment, ruling, evidentiary decision, sentence, or interpretation of law does not by itself establish judicial misconduct.

An appeal generally addresses whether a judicial decision contains a reviewable error of law, fact, procedure, or jurisdiction. A judicial-conduct complaint ordinarily concerns how the judge behaved, whether the judge remained impartial, whether the judge abused judicial office, or whether the judge acted inconsistently with the ethical and institutional obligations of judicial office.

The Canadian Judicial Council expressly states that it is not a court and cannot change or overturn a judicial decision. A person seeking to challenge a decision must ordinarily pursue an appeal or another available judicial remedy. The Council’s complaint process concerns the conduct of federally appointed judges, not the correction of decisions.

A complaint may involve both legal error and judicial conduct when, for example, the alleged error is accompanied by:

• Evidence of bias or prejudgment;
• Knowingly false statements about the record;
• Retaliatory use of judicial authority;
• Concealment of a conflict;
• Improper private communications;
• Deliberate obstruction of disclosure;
• Unequal procedural treatment;
• Refusal to follow a binding order for an improper purpose;
• Repeated conduct suggesting more than an isolated legal mistake.

The submission should identify the specific conduct rather than merely asserting that the decision was wrong.

Stinchcombe and Disclosure Relevance

In R. v. Stinchcombe, the Supreme Court of Canada established the Crown’s obligation to disclose relevant information, subject to recognized exceptions, so that an accused person can make full answer and defence.

Judges do not ordinarily possess the Crown’s disclosure obligation. They nevertheless play a central role in enforcing disclosure rights, resolving disputes, fashioning remedies, controlling proceedings, and ensuring fairness.

A judicial complaint may be relevant to the Stinchcombe List when it concerns:

• Refusal to enforce a disclosure order;
• Failure to address material nondisclosure;
• Mischaracterization of what was disclosed;
• Improper acceptance of unsupported Crown representations;
• Denial of a meaningful opportunity to examine withheld evidence;
• Retaliation against a party for seeking disclosure;
• Improper sealing or restriction of relevant records;
• Failure to remedy prejudice caused by delayed disclosure;
• Unequal treatment of Crown and defence disclosure failures;
• Interference with the preservation or production of evidence;
• Conduct impairing the accused’s ability to make full answer and defence.

In R. v. McNeil, the Supreme Court of Canada addressed the relevance of police disciplinary and criminal-investigation records concerning an officer who was a principal Crown witness. The decision confirms that credibility-related misconduct information may form part of the criminal disclosure process when it has a realistic bearing on the proceeding.

A complaint should explain how the judicial conduct may affect disclosure, witness credibility, evidentiary reliability, procedural fairness, impartial adjudication, or public confidence in the proceeding.

A Complaint Is Not an Official Finding

The Stinchcombe List distinguishes between:

• An allegation;
• A citizen report;
• A filed complaint;
• A complaint acknowledged by a judicial council;
• A pending judicial-conduct review;
• A screening dismissal;
• A reviewing-member decision;
• An expression of concern;
• A warning or reprimand;
• A recommendation for education, counselling, or apology;
• A review-panel referral;
• A hearing-panel finding;
• A recommendation for removal;
• An appellate criticism;
• A recusal ruling;
• A finding of reasonable apprehension of bias;
• A civil allegation;
• A criminal charge;
• A criminal conviction;
• An admission;
• A disputed public record;
• An overturned, withdrawn, or superseded finding.

Filing this form does not establish that the judicial officer committed misconduct. It creates a record of the allegation and supporting material for review.

A pending or unresolved complaint must not be represented as a final finding. Any published profile should identify the source and procedural status of the material.

Official Judicial Complaints and Stinchcombe List Complaints

A complaint submitted through this page is made to the Stinchcombe List. It is not automatically transmitted to:

• The Canadian Judicial Council;
• A provincial or territorial judicial council;
• A chief justice or chief judge;
• A court administrator;
• An attorney general;
• A minister of justice;
• A legislature;
• A law society;
• A police service;
• A human-rights commission;
• An ombudsperson;
• Any other government or professional authority.

The Canadian Judicial Council receives and reviews complaints concerning the conduct of federally appointed judges. Complaints involving provincially or territorially appointed judicial officers must generally be directed to the applicable provincial or territorial body.

A person seeking an appeal, recusal, rehearing, mistrial, stay, disclosure order, constitutional remedy, judicial review, compensation, or formal discipline may need to pursue a separate process.

Submitting an official complaint elsewhere does not prevent submission to the Stinchcombe List. Include the complaint number, receiving authority, date filed, and current status whenever available.

Information Required

Provide as much of the following information as possible.

Judicial Officer Identification

• Full name;
• Judicial title;
• Court, tribunal, or adjudicative body;
• Province or territory;
• Courthouse or hearing location;
• Appointment type, if known;
• Former judicial or professional positions;
• Known alternate spellings.

Proceeding Information

• Case name or style of cause;
• Court or tribunal file number;
• Hearing or trial date;
• Court location;
• Type of proceeding;
• Charges or issues involved;
• Whether the proceeding is ongoing or concluded;
• Whether an appeal, judicial review, recusal motion, or complaint is pending;
• Names or roles of relevant prosecutors, lawyers, officers, witnesses, or parties.

Complaint Description

State specifically:

• What the judicial officer did or failed to do;
• What the judicial officer said;
• When and where the conduct occurred;
• Which evidence, submission, statement, ruling, or communication is relevant;
• Why the conduct may demonstrate bias, retaliation, dishonesty, abuse of authority, lack of candour, or procedural unfairness;
• Whether the conduct occurred in open court, in chambers, in correspondence, or outside the proceeding;
• What evidence supports the complaint;
• Whether the conduct was isolated or part of a pattern;
• Whether another authority has reviewed the matter;
• Whether the allegation remains pending, disputed, substantiated, dismissed, appealed, or otherwise resolved.

Use factual language. Avoid relying solely on labels such as “corrupt,” “biased,” “dishonest,” or “unethical.” Describe the specific words, acts, omissions, relationships, communications, records, and consequences.

Bias and Conflict-of-Interest Complaints

Where the complaint concerns bias or a conflict of interest, identify:

• The relationship, interest, statement, or circumstance creating the concern;
• When the judicial officer became aware of it;
• Whether it was disclosed;
• Whether a recusal request was made;
• How the judicial officer responded;
• Whether the alleged conflict was personal, professional, political, financial, institutional, or relational;
• What rulings or conduct followed;
• Whether a court later addressed the issue.

The complaint should distinguish between an adverse ruling and conduct capable of supporting a reasonable concern about impartiality.

Relevant evidence may include:

• Financial or business relationships;
• Former representation of a party;
• Prior employment;
• Family or personal relationships;
• Political activity;
• Public statements;
• Private communications;
• Repeated differential treatment;
• Personal involvement in disputed events;
• Undisclosed connections to police, prosecutors, lawyers, witnesses, or parties.

Ex Parte Communication

Where the complaint concerns an improper private communication, identify:

• Who participated;
• When and where it occurred;
• How the submitter learned of it;
• What subject was discussed;
• Whether all parties were notified;
• Whether the communication was recorded or disclosed;
• Whether the communication affected a ruling, scheduling decision, evidentiary issue, or outcome;
• Whether an objection or recusal request followed.

Routine administrative communications are not necessarily improper. The complaint should explain why the communication concerned a substantive, disputed, or prejudicial matter.

Courtroom Conduct and Demeanour

A complaint may concern judicial demeanour when it materially affects fairness, dignity, impartiality, or access to justice.

Potentially relevant conduct includes:

• Humiliation or ridicule;
• Threats unrelated to legitimate courtroom control;
• Derogatory or discriminatory remarks;
• Persistent interruption of one party but not another;
• Refusal to permit a party to complete a submission;
• Hostility toward self-represented litigants;
• Intimidation of witnesses;
• Sexualized, racialized, political, or otherwise improper commentary;
• Mockery of disability, language, education, poverty, immigration status, or personal circumstances;
• Conduct suggesting prejudgment;
• Retaliation for making an objection, disclosure request, complaint, or recusal motion.

The complaint should quote the words used as accurately as possible and identify any transcript, recording, witness, or contemporaneous note supporting the account.

Abuse of Contempt or Judicial Authority

Where the complaint concerns contempt or coercive judicial powers, identify:

• The order or direction allegedly violated;
• The conduct said to constitute contempt;
• The notice provided;
• Whether the person was permitted to respond;
• The sanction threatened or imposed;
• Whether counsel was available;
• Whether the power was used to suppress criticism, compel silence, discourage a complaint, or retaliate against lawful conduct;
• Whether an appellate court reviewed the matter.

Judges possess lawful authority to control proceedings and enforce orders. A complaint should explain why the conduct is alleged to have exceeded legitimate judicial administration and become arbitrary, retaliatory, discriminatory, or abusive.

Disclosure and Evidentiary Complaints

Where the complaint concerns disclosure or evidence, identify:

• The requested material;
• Who possessed or controlled it;
• When disclosure was requested;
• What ruling was made;
• What representations were accepted or rejected;
• Whether the judge reviewed the material;
• Whether the defence was permitted to make submissions;
• Whether evidence was lost, destroyed, withheld, sealed, or excluded;
• How the ruling or conduct affected the proceeding;
• Whether an appellate court later addressed the issue.

A disagreement with an evidentiary ruling is ordinarily an appellate matter. The complaint should identify conduct beyond the ruling itself, such as bias, retaliation, knowingly misstating the record, refusing to hear one party, concealing a conflict, or deliberately frustrating a binding disclosure obligation.

Improper Public Commentary

Where the complaint concerns public statements, identify:

• The exact statement;
• Date and location;
• Audience or publication;
• Whether the proceeding was pending or foreseeable;
• Whether the comment concerned a party, lawyer, witness, issue, or likely outcome;
• Whether the statement created an appearance of prejudgment or partisanship;
• Whether a correction or recusal followed.

Attach the full recording, transcript, article, post, or official record whenever possible.

Supporting Documentation

Attach or link the strongest available supporting records.

Useful materials may include:

• Court decisions;
• Reasons for judgment;
• Endorsements;
• Hearing or trial transcripts;
• Audio recordings authorized for lawful use;
• Court orders;
• Recusal motions and rulings;
• Disclosure applications;
• Appellate decisions;
• Judicial-review materials;
• Judicial-council complaints;
• Complaint acknowledgements;
• Judicial-conduct decisions;
• Correspondence from a chief justice or court administrator;
• Affidavits;
• Court filings;
• Exhibits;
• Docket records;
• Emails or letters;
• Public speeches or published commentary;
• Government or legislative records;
• News reports from identifiable publications;
• Sworn declarations;
• Contemporaneous notes from participants or witnesses.

Original and complete records are preferred. Identify any document that has been excerpted, edited, redacted, translated, summarized, or reconstructed.

Do not deceptively alter documents, recordings, screenshots, metadata, or images.

Transcript and Recording Accuracy

Where the complaint relies on words spoken in court, provide the official transcript whenever available.

When no official transcript exists, identify:

• Who created the notes or recording;
• When the record was created;
• Whether it is complete;
• Whether recording was legally authorized;
• Whether other witnesses can confirm the statement;
• Whether the court record contains a related ruling or notation.

Do not submit unlawfully created recordings or material whose disclosure is prohibited.

Complaints Based on Personal Knowledge

A person may submit a complaint based on direct personal knowledge.

The complaint should explain:

• The submitter’s role in the proceeding;
• What the submitter personally observed;
• What information came from another person;
• What information came from a document, transcript, recording, or public source;
• Whether the submitter was a party, accused person, lawyer, witness, journalist, court employee, observer, or other participant;
• Whether any part of the account is based on inference or belief.

Personal knowledge may support a complaint, but observed facts should be distinguished from conclusions, legal argument, and hearsay.

Multiple Judicial Officers

When several judicial officers are involved, identify the conduct attributed to each person separately.

Do not attribute one person’s conduct to every member of a panel, court, or tribunal unless the record supports joint participation, adoption, authorization, concealment, or ratification.

Separate profiles may be created when the conduct and supporting records differ materially.

Administrative and Supervisory Conduct

A complaint may identify conduct by a chief justice, chief judge, regional senior judge, or other judicial administrator, including:

• Concealing or obstructing a conduct complaint;
• Retaliating against a complainant or whistleblower;
• Assigning a judge despite a known conflict;
• Interfering with case assignment for an improper purpose;
• Failing to preserve complaint records;
• Misrepresenting the status of a complaint;
• Improperly restricting access to court records;
• Ratifying known misconduct;
• Using administrative authority to shield recurring conduct;
• Failing to implement required remedial measures.

A judicial administrator should not be named solely because of title. The complaint should describe the person’s acts, omissions, knowledge, instructions, approval, or responsibility.

Anonymous and Confidential Submissions

Anonymous submissions may be reviewed. However, anonymity can limit verification, clarification, and assessment of authenticity.

Submitters may provide contact information for verification while requesting that it not be published. Contact information will not ordinarily appear publicly unless the submitter authorizes publication or it is already part of a public record.

The Stinchcombe List cannot guarantee confidentiality against every legal demand, court order, statutory duty, or security incident. Do not submit information that would identify a protected complainant, young person, juror, confidential informant, sealed witness, or other legally protected person.

Prohibited Material

Do not submit:

• Knowingly false information;
• Fabricated evidence;
• Materially altered records presented as originals;
• Threats or encouragement of harassment;
• Home addresses or unrelated family information;
• Private telephone numbers unrelated to the complaint;
• Financial account or identity-theft information;
• Information prohibited by a publication ban;
• Sealed or unlawfully obtained records;
• Privileged information the submitter is not legally entitled to publish;
• Confidential jury information;
• Information identifying a protected complainant, young person, witness, juror, or confidential informant;
• Material obtained through unauthorized access to a restricted system;
• Content whose publication would violate a court order;
• Unrelated personal attacks or discriminatory content.

Sensitive information should be lawfully redacted before submission.

Review Process

After submission, the Stinchcombe List may:

1. Review the complaint for completeness;
2. Verify the judicial officer’s identity and appointment;
3. Determine whether an existing profile concerns the same person;
4. Review the supporting records;
5. Search for corroborating public information;
6. Request additional information from the submitter;
7. Contact the judicial officer, court, council, or other authority for comment;
8. Categorize the complaint by source and procedural status;
9. Redact protected or irrelevant information;
10. Publish, defer, consolidate, archive, or reject the submission.

Publication is not guaranteed.

The Stinchcombe List may decline material that is unverifiable, legally restricted, exclusively concerned with an appealable ruling, excessively speculative, duplicative, or unsupported by sufficient factual detail.

Judicial Response and Corrections

A judicial officer or authorized representative may submit:

• A response;
• A correction;
• An official disposition;
• A judicial-council decision;
• An appellate ruling;
• A recusal decision;
• Exculpatory documentation;
• Relevant contextual information;
• Proof of mistaken identity;
• Evidence that a statement, allegation, or document has been materially mischaracterized.

A supported response may be added to the public record. Providing a response does not necessarily require removal of the original complaint, particularly where the complaint and its disposition remain relevant to public accountability or the integrity of judicial proceedings.

Requesting Removal

A judicial officer may separately request removal or modification of published information.

Removal is not automatic merely because:

• The judicial officer disputes the complaint;
• A judicial council screened out or dismissed the complaint;
• No appeal was filed;
• An appellate court did not grant relief;
• No criminal charge was filed;
• The judicial officer retired, resigned, transferred, or changed position;
• An administrative record was closed;
• The underlying matter is old.

The review will consider accuracy, source reliability, procedural status, continuing public-interest value, legal restrictions, disclosure relevance, mistaken identity, and material error.

Not an Official Judicial or Government Determination

The Stinchcombe List is an independent public-interest platform.

Publication does not mean that a court, judicial council, chief justice, attorney general, legislature, law society, or government authority has formally found that the judicial officer committed misconduct.

The Canadian Judicial Council’s complaint process is directed toward maintaining public confidence in the judiciary and assesses complaints concerning federally appointed judges under its statutory procedures and ethical framework. Conduct falling short of an aspirational ethical standard does not necessarily amount to misconduct warranting formal sanction.

The Stinchcombe List records potential disclosure, credibility, bias, integrity, and impeachment material so that the information may be located, evaluated, challenged, corrected, supplemented, and considered by appropriate participants in the justice system.

Submitter Certification

By submitting this complaint, the submitter affirms that:

• The complaint is made in good faith;
• The factual statements are believed to be accurate;
• Allegations, inferences, opinions, and legal arguments are identified as such;
• The correct judicial officer has been identified to the best of the submitter’s knowledge;
• Supporting records have not been deceptively altered;
• Known contrary information has not been intentionally concealed;
• Any material conflict of interest has been disclosed;
• Publication is not known to be prohibited by law or court order;
• Protected personal information has been removed where required;
• The submission is intended to document a matter of legitimate legal, institutional, or public concern.

Before You Submit

Confirm that you have:

• Identified the correct judicial officer;
• Identified the court, tribunal, and jurisdiction;
• Included the case name and file number;
• Described specific conduct rather than merely disputing the outcome;
• Explained why the matter involves potential misconduct rather than legal error alone;
• Explained the potential fairness, bias, candour, disclosure, or integrity relevance;
• Attached or linked available supporting evidence;
• Identified any official judicial complaint number;
• Stated the current procedural status;
• Distinguished allegations from findings;
• Disclosed any known appellate ruling, dismissal, correction, recusal, or contrary decision;
• Removed protected personal information;
• Preserved copies of the original records.

Submission places the complaint into the Stinchcombe List review process. It does not commence an appeal, judicial review, recusal motion, criminal proceeding, civil action, or official judicial-conduct investigation.