"AI Directives by Chief Justices Duncan and Joyal: Balancing Innovation with Judicial Accountability" ______________________________________________
Mohd Ali Hirji
1084 Lillooet Road,
North Vancouver, British Columbia,
Canada V7J 2H8 (604) 985-9383
______________________________________________________________________________________________
All Honourable Members of CJC Canadian Judicial Council
112 Kent Street, Suite 450 Ottawa, ON K1A 0W8 Canada
June 26, 2024.
Ref: CJC File 24-0467.
OPEN LETTER TO ALL HONOURABLE MEMBERS OF CANADIAN JUDICIAL
COUNCIL.
The Right Honourable Richard Wagner, P.C., C.J.C. (Chairperson) Supreme Court of Canada
The Honourable D. Blair Nixon, Associate Chief Justice of the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta
The Honourable Ritu Khullar, Chief Justice of Alberta VACANT, Chief Justice of the Court of
King's Bench of Alberta
The Honourable Kenneth G. Nielsen, Associate Chief Justice of the Court of King's Bench of
Alberta
The Honourable Christopher E. Hinkson, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of British Columbia
The Honourable Heather J. Holmes, Associate Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of British
Columbia
The Honourable Leonard Marchand, Chief Justice of British Columbia The Honourable
Marianne Rivoalen, Chief Justice of Manitoba
The Honourable Glenn Joyal, Chief Justice of His Majesty’s Court of King's Bench of Manitoba
The Honourable Shane I. Perlmutter, Associate Chief Justice of His Majesty’s Court of King's
Bench of Manitoba
The Honourable Gwen B. Hatch, Associate Chief Justice of the Court of King's Bench of
Manitoba, Family Division
The Honourable J.C. Marc Richard, Chief Justice of New Brunswick
The Honourable Tracey DeWare, Chief Justice of the Court of King's Bench of New Brunswick
The Honourable Larry Landry, Associate Chief Justice of the Court of King's Bench of New Brunswick
The Honourable Deborah E. Fry, Chief Justice of Newfoundland and Labrador
The Honourable Raymond P. Whalen, Chief Justice of the Trial Division of the Supreme Court
of Newfoundland and Labrador
The Honourable Rosalie McGrath, Associate Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of
Newfoundland and Labrador
The Honourable Shannon Smallwood, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Northwest
Territories
The Honourable Michael J. Wood, Chief Justice of Nova Scotia
The Honourable Deborah K. Smith, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia
VACANT, Associate Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia, Family Division
The Honourable Patrick J. Duncan, Associate Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia
The Honourable Neil A. Sharkey, Chief Justice of the Nunavut Court of Justice
The Honourable Michael H. Tulloch, Chief Justice of Ontario
The Honourable Geoffrey Morawetz, Chief Justice of the Superior Court of Justice of Ontario
The Honourable J. Michal Fairburn, Associate Chief Justice of Ontario
The Honourable Faye E. McWatt, Associate Chief Justice of the Superior Court of Justice of Ontario
The Honourable James W. Gormley, Chief Justice of Prince Edward Island
The Honourable Tracey L. Clements, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Prince Edward Island
The Honourable Jean-Fran?ois Michaud, Associate Chief Justice of the Québec Superior Court
The Honourable Manon Savard, Chief Justice of Quebec
The Honourable Marie-Anne Paquette, Chief Justice of the Superior Court of Quebec
The Honourable Catherine La Rosa, Senior Associate Chief Justice of the Superior Court of Quebec
The Honourable Robert Leurer, Chief Justice of Saskatchewan
The Honourable Martel D. Popescul, Chief Justice of His Majesty's Court of King's Bench for
Saskatchewan
The Honourable Michael D. Tochor, Associate Chief Justice of His Majesty's Court of King's
Bench for Saskatchewan
The Honourable Suzanne M. Duncan, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Yukon Territory
The Honourable Yves de Montigny, Chief Justice of the Federal Court of Appeal
The Honourable Paul S. Crampton, Chief Justice of the Federal Court
The Honourable Jocelyne Gagné, Associate Chief Justice of the Federal Court
The Honourable Eugene P. Rossiter, Chief Justice of the Tax Court of Canada
The Honourable Anick Pelletier, Associate Chief Justice of the Tax Court of Canada
The Honourable Elizabeth Bennett, Interim Chief Justice of the Court Martial Appeal Court of
Canada
____________________________________________________________________________________
Dear Members of the Canadian Judicial Council:
This is a follow-up to my letter dated June 13, 2024, which has not yet received acknowledgment. I am writing again to draw your urgent attention to critical issues affecting the integrity of our judicial system. While I commend the proactive steps being taken to regulate the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in legal submissions, I urge all members to first address the profound dysfunctions within our judiciary.
Please note that this matter relates to the Judicial Council chairperson, the Right Honourable Richard Wagner, P.C., C.J.C. (Chairperson) of the Supreme Court of Canada, and others. Consequently, his involvement as chairperson in this matter will present a conflict of interest.
Therefore, under the Canadian Judicial Council "Review Procedures 2023," specifically section 7.1, he should recuse himself as Chairperson in this instance.
Section 7.1, which outlines the Chairperson’s responsibility in designating a member to review a complaint.
Section 7.1 Explanation
Section 7.1 states that the Chairperson must designate one of its members to review a complaint referred by a screening officer, a complaint made by the Council itself, or an anonymous complaint.
This implies that the Chairperson has a pivotal role in the initial stages of the complaint review process, including making decisions that could affect the impartiality and integrity of the review.
Justification for Recusal
1. Conflict of Interest: The Chairperson, being the subject of the complaint or involved in a matter related to the complaint, creates a conflict of interest. The impartiality of the review process could be compromised if the Chairperson does not recuse themselves.
2. Integrity of the Process: For the process to be seen as fair and unbiased, any appearance of conflict of interest must be avoided. Recusal is necessary to maintain public confidence in the impartiality of the Council’s proceedings.
3. Adherence to Ethical Standards: Ethical principles for judges and judicial conduct committees emphasize the need for impartiality and avoiding situations where there could be perceived bias or conflict of interest. The Chairperson’s recusal aligns with these ethical standards.
AI Directives by Chief Justices Duncan and Joyal: Balancing Innovation with Judicial Accountability
In light of the recent directives on AI use issued by Chief Justice Suzanne Duncan of the Yukon Supreme Court and Chief Justice Glenn Joyal of Manitoba’s Court of King’s Bench, it is evident that the judiciary is rightly concerned about the reliability and transparency of AI-generated information. However, it is imperative that equal, if not greater, attention must be given to the ongoing failures within our judicial system that have severe repercussions on the lives of Canadian citizens.
Key Issues in this Case:
Validation of Void Orders: For nine years, by successive courts, including the Supreme Court of Canada, have illegally validated void ab initio orders issued by the trial judge on November 6, 2015. Even the counsel for the defense has refused to enforce these orders due to their fundamentally flawed status. This has destroyed the lives of honest Canadian citizens, Mr. Mohd Ali Hirji, and his family, who sought truth and justice from the courts. This constitutes a gross miscarriage of justice and highlights the systemic failures within our judiciary.
Seriousness of Misconduct in Validation of Void Orders:
The validation of void orders by successive courts, including the Supreme Court of Canada, constitutes profound and severe judicial misconduct with far-reaching consequences. Following is a detailed articulation of its seriousness:
Fundamental Breach of Justice:
1. Violation of Legal Principles: Void orders are legally null and without effect from the beginning (void ab initio). Validating such orders undermines the core principles of justice and legality, as established by the rule of law. Courts are expected to uphold and enforce laws consistently and fairly, and validating void orders directly contravenes these principles.
Erosion of Public Trust:
2. Loss of Confidence in the Judiciary: Public trust in the judicial system is paramount for its effective functioning. When courts validate void orders, it creates a perception of bias, incompetence, or corruption, significantly eroding public confidence. Citizens rely on the judiciary to deliver impartial and just decisions; failure to do so undermines the foundation of the legal system.
Impact on Individuals and Families:
3. Devastating Personal Consequences: For individuals like Mr. Mohd Ali Hirji and his family, the validation of void orders can lead to severe personal, financial, and emotional distress. It disrupts lives, causing long-term harm and suffering. Such miscarriages of justice can leave victims without recourse or hope for a fair resolution.
Systemic Failures:
4. Highlighting Judicial Inadequacies: Persistent validation of void orders points to systemic failures within the judiciary. It suggests a lack of accountability and oversight, inadequate legal frameworks, or insufficient training and awareness among judges. This systemic failure calls into question the judiciary's ability to self-regulate and correct its errors.
领英推荐
Legal and Ethical Violations:
5. Contravention of Judicial Oaths and Duties: Judges take an oath to uphold the Constitution and the laws of the land. Validating void orders violates this oath and the ethical duties of judges to act impartially and justly. It constitutes a dereliction of duty and ethical misconduct, warranting investigation and corrective action.
Implications for Judicial Precedents:
6. Setting Dangerous Precedents: When higher courts, including the Supreme Court, validate void orders, it sets a dangerous precedent. It signals to lower courts that such actions are permissible, potentially leading to widespread judicial malpractice and the perpetuation of unjust legal practices.
Case Law
Perlman v. Lehner ONSC 612: is a notable case in Ontario, Canada, concerning the enforceability of court orders and the importance of jurisdictional authority. The case deals with the actions taken by a judge that were challenged on the grounds of jurisdiction and procedural fairness.
Facts of the Case:
? Parties Involved: The plaintiff is Perlman, and the defendant is Lehner.
? Initial Dispute: The dispute arose over certain actions or decisions made by Lehner that Perlman contested, leading to legal proceedings.
? Legal Proceedings: Perlman filed a case in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, challenging the validity of certain court orders issued in the context of the dispute.
Legal Arguments:
? Plaintiff’s Argument: Perlman argued that the orders issued by the court were void because the judge acted beyond their jurisdiction and did not follow proper procedural norms. Perlman sought to have these orders declared unenforceable.
? Defendant’s Argument: Lehner maintained that the orders were valid and enforceable. The defense argued that the judge had the necessary jurisdiction to issue the orders and that the procedures followed were appropriate.
Court's Analysis:
? Jurisdiction: The court examined whether the judge had the proper jurisdiction to issue the contested orders. Jurisdiction refers to the legal authority of a court to hear a case and make binding decisions.
? Procedural Fairness: The court also evaluated whether procedural fairness was maintained during the issuance of the orders. This includes ensuring that both parties had a fair opportunity to present their case and that the judge adhered to established legal procedures.
Decision:
? Ruling: The Ontario Superior Court of Justice ruled in favor of Perlman, determining that the orders in question were void.
? Reasoning: The court found that the judge had acted beyond their jurisdiction and had violated procedural fairness. As a result, the orders were declared void and unenforceable.
Impact and Precedent:
? Precedent Setting: This case set a significant precedent in Ontario law by reinforcing the principle that void orders, issued without proper jurisdiction or in violation of procedural norms, are unenforceable.
? Legal Principle: The case established that for an order to be enforceable, it must be issued within the jurisdictional authority of the court and in compliance with procedural fairness. This principle ensures that the rule of law is upheld and that judicial authority is exercised appropriately.
Implications:
? For Courts: Judges must ensure that they act within their jurisdictional limits and adhere to procedural rules. Any deviation can result in their orders being declared void and unenforceable.
? For Litigants: Parties involved in legal disputes can challenge orders that they believe were issued without proper jurisdiction or in violation of procedural norms. This case provides a basis for such challenges and emphasizes the need for judicial accountability.
Conclusion:
Perlman v. Lehner ONSC 612 is a landmark case that underscores the importance of jurisdiction and procedural fairness in judicial proceedings. By setting a precedent that void orders are unenforceable, it has significant implications for the judicial system and for parties involved in legal disputes. The case ensures that judicial orders must comply with legal jurisdiction and procedural standards to be valid and enforceable.
Did the Case Set a New Precedent?
Yes, Perlman v. Lehner ONSC 612 set a new precedent by establishing that orders issued without proper jurisdiction or in violation of procedural fairness are void and unenforceable. This ruling reinforces the necessity for judicial orders to comply with legal jurisdiction and procedural standards, thereby upholding the integrity of the judicial system and ensuring that justice is fairly administered.
Serious misconduct falls within the jurisdiction of the Canadian Judicial Council.
The validation of void orders by the judiciary is a serious misconduct with extensive negative implications for justice, public trust, and the integrity of the legal system. It highlights the need for stringent oversight, accountability, and reforms within the judiciary to prevent such occurrences and restore confidence in the legal process.
The Canadian Judicial Council "Review Procedures 2023" To address the serious misconduct involved in the validation of void orders, the following sections from the Canadian Judicial Council "Review Procedures 2023" document are applicable to this case:
a. Section 2.1: This section outlines the grounds for removal from office of a judge, including misconduct and failure in the due execution of judicial office, which can undermine public confidence in the judiciary to such an extent that it renders the judge incapable of executing the functions of judicial office. This is relevant as the validation of void orders for nine years constitutes a severe failure in the due execution of judicial office. (Wikipedia).
b. Section 6.7(1): This section provides the criteria for dismissing a complaint. It specifies that complaints cannot be dismissed if they involve serious issues such as judicial misconduct or abuse of process. Given the gravity of the validation of void orders, this section reinforces the need for thorough examination and not dismissing the complaint on trivial grounds.
c. Section 7.1: This section mandates the review of complaints by a designated member of the Judicial Conduct Committee. It emphasizes the need for proper handling and consideration of complaints, ensuring that serious allegations such as those involving judicial misconduct are duly reviewed. (Yukon Courts).
d. Section 8.9(1): This section states that if a review panel determines that a judge’s removal from office could be justified, it must refer the complaint to the Council for the establishment of a full hearing panel. This is crucial for ensuring that allegations of serious misconduct, such as the prolonged validation of void orders, are properly investigated and adjudicated. (Yukon Courts).
e. Section 11.1(1): This section outlines the establishment of a full hearing panel upon receipt of a referral of a complaint involving serious judicial misconduct. This process ensures that complaints are addressed with the necessary gravity and thoroughness. (Yukon Courts).
These sections highlight the procedures and responsibilities of the Canadian Judicial Council in addressing serious judicial misconduct. The prolonged validation of void orders not only undermines public confidence in the judiciary but also constitutes a significant failure in the due execution of judicial office. It is imperative that the Council adheres to these procedures to uphold the integrity of the judicial system and ensure justice.
The Broken Down Justice System: A Reflection on the CJC's Failures and Lack of Judicial Courage:
There appears to be a systemic reluctance among Chief Justices and Associate Chief Justices to acknowledge and address these miscarriages of justice. The absence of accountability and corrective action undermines public confidence in our judicial system. This reluctance is not just an administrative oversight but a deep-seated issue that points to a broken system. When those at the highest levels of our judiciary fail to confront and rectify these injustices, it sends a message that the integrity of our legal system can be compromised without consequence.
Systemic Failures and Shameful Acts of the CJC:
The Canadian Judicial Council (CJC), tasked with maintaining the integrity of our judicial system, has unfortunately become representative of these systemic failures. The CJC's inability or unwillingness to hold judges accountable for their actions reflects a disturbing trend of negligence. This failure to act not only tarnishes the reputation of our judiciary but also perpetuates a cycle of injustice. The public's trust in the legal system is eroded when the very body responsible for overseeing judicial conduct turns a blind eye to egregious abuses of power and breaches of legal and ethical standards.
The Impact on Public Trust:
These failures have profound implications. When Chief Justices and the CJC fail to address judicial misconduct, it creates a ripple effect that undermines the entire legal system. Victims of these miscarriages of justice are left without recourse, and the public becomes increasingly disillusioned with the judiciary's ability to deliver fair and impartial justice. The lack of judicial courage to confront these issues head-on is not just a betrayal of those who suffer from these injustices, but a betrayal of the foundational principles of justice and fairness that our legal system is supposed to uphold.
In conclusion, the reluctance of Chief Justices and the CJC to address and correct judicial misconduct highlights a critical weakness in our justice system. This lack of accountability and judicial courage not only damages public confidence but also calls into question the very integrity of our judiciary. It is imperative for the health of our legal system that these issues are acknowledged and addressed with the seriousness they deserve.
Open Letter and Complaint:
Attached to this open letter and correspondence is another open letter and a formal complaint submitted to the Canadian Judicial Council. This document meticulously details the aforementioned issues and highlights the failure of the judiciary to rectify the wrongful validation of void orders by successive courts.
Call to Action:
I respectfully request the following actions from all members of the Canadian Judicial Council:
Thorough Investigation: Conduct an in-depth investigation into not only this case but the cases where void ab initio orders have been unjustly validated by abuse of power and take corrective measures to ensure justice is served.
Accountability and Reform: Implement reforms to ensure that Chief Justices and Associate Chief Justices can address and rectify judicial errors without fear of reprisal.
Focus on Internal Dysfunction: Prioritize addressing the internal dysfunctions within the judiciary and expanding regulatory frameworks for AI use in legal contexts.
Conclusion:
While the cautious approach towards AI is commendable, it is crucial that we do not overlook the immediate and pressing issues within our judiciary. The integrity of our legal system and the trust of the Canadian public depend on our ability to confront and resolve these challenges head-on.
Additional Note to All CJC Members:
Hirji has challenged the judiciary and all members of the Canadian Judicial Council to refute the claims presented in the open letter and the linked Hyperlinked articles below. This is an opportunity for the Canadian Judiciary and the Canadian Judicial Council and its members to honor their oath of office and prove their commitment to the Constitution and the principles of justice.
The articles linked below provide comprehensive analyses and potential outcomes based on unopposed evidence recorded in court records. These outcomes should not differ based on the same records submitted to the Canadian Judicial Council:
Chief Justice Duncan's Concerns about Reliability and Accuracy:
Chief Justice Duncan's primary concern revolves around the reliability and accuracy of information generated by AI tools. While this concern is understandable, it is important to consider that the accuracy of AI-generated information largely depends on the quality of prompts and the verification processes in place. Incidents of generating fictitious case law highlight the need for proper oversight but do not invalidate the potential benefits of AI tools.
As demonstrated by the undisputed facts in the attached articles, AI tools like ChatGPT can produce highly accurate and relevant information when used correctly. Properly crafted prompts and thorough verification can mitigate risks associated with AI- generated content. It is essential that presiding judges and legal professionals have a sound knowledge and understanding of AI or access to qualified prompt engineers who can ensure the accuracy of information submitted by parties and judgments rendered by the court. This approach ensures that the use of AI in legal processes enhances, rather than undermines, the reliability and integrity of judicial outcomes.
Potential for Misuse by Self-Represented Litigants:
Concerns about self-represented litigants potentially misusing AI tools are no greater than they were before the advent of AI tools. In fact, AI tools can aid pro se litigants without legal training by providing easier access to legal information and resources. While individuals may rely on AI-generated information that could be misleading, the fundamental purpose of the court to render fair judgments based on facts does not change.
However, this risk can be mitigated through proper guidelines and educational resources on the responsible use of AI in legal research and submissions. Additionally, the involvement of prompt engineers, who can develop accurate prompts and verify the AI-generated content, is crucial. This approach ensures that AI tools are used effectively and responsibly, ultimately supporting self-represented litigants without compromising the integrity of the legal process or the rule of law.
Analysis:
Transparency and Fairness: The directive to disclose the use of AI tools in legal submissions aims to ensure transparency and fairness. This measure allows the court to understand how AI tools are being used and to address any potential issues. Transparency is crucial for maintaining the integrity of the judicial process.
Reliability and Accuracy: AI tools like ChatGPT can produce highly accurate, reliable, and relevant information when used correctly. Properly crafted prompts and thorough verification can mitigate risks associated with AI-generated content. It is essential that presiding judges and legal professionals have a sound understanding of AI or access to qualified prompt engineers who can ensure the accuracy of information submitted by parties.
Efficiency and Access to Justice: AI tools have the potential to create efficiencies in terms of time and cost, enhancing access to justice. They can assist in legal research, drafting documents, and providing legal information to a broader audience, particularly benefiting those who cannot afford legal representation.
Flexibility and Adaptability: The broad nature of the practice directive reflects an understanding of the rapidly evolving nature of AI technology. The directive's flexibility allows it to be amended as more is learned about the use and implications of AI in the legal field.
Benefits of Using AI Tools Like ChatGPT:
Enhanced Research Capabilities: AI tools can process vast amounts of data quickly and accurately, aiding legal professionals in conducting thorough research and finding relevant precedents more efficiently than traditional methods.
Cost Reduction: AI tools can reduce the cost of legal services by automating routine tasks, making legal assistance more affordable and accessible to a wider population.
Improved Access to Legal Information: Self-represented litigants and individuals without legal training can benefit from AI tools that provide easy access to legal information and resources, empowering them to better understand their legal rights and obligations.
Increased Productivity: By automating repetitive and time-consuming tasks, AI tools can free up legal professionals to focus on more complex and strategic aspects of their work, enhancing overall productivity.
Conclusion:
While the concerns raised by Chief Justice Suzanne Duncan about the use of AI tools like ChatGPT in legal submissions are valid, they must be balanced against the significant benefits these tools can offer. Ensuring transparency, providing proper guidelines, and educating users on the responsible use of AI can address many of these concerns.
Mr. Hirji's Journey: Harnessing AI for Justice
Mr. Hirji's case illustrates and speaks for itself how AI and algorithmic tools can be powerful allies in the pursuit of justice. Faced with significant legal challenges and without formal legal training, Mr. Hirji utilized his programming skills to analyze the most complex issues by breaking them into small chunks, identifying relevant legal documents, pinpointing key arguments, and structuring his case effectively. This innovative approach not only helped him manage his legal proceedings more efficiently but also highlighted the broader applications of AI in the legal sector.
Breaking Down Complexity:
By leveraging AI, Mr. Hirji was able to dissect intricate legal issues into manageable components. This process of deconstruction allowed him to tackle each aspect of his case methodically, ensuring that no critical detail was overlooked. The use of algorithmic tools and his own creation of relevant algorithms and prompts enabled him to navigate through vast amounts of legal information, identify pertinent documents, and extract essential arguments, all of which were pivotal in building a strong legal strategy. He is confident that neither the courts nor the members of the Canadian Judicial Council can discredit or repudiate his claims supported by undisputable and credible evidence recorded in the court records.
Efficiency and Innovation:
Mr. Hirji's approach demonstrates how AI can streamline legal processes. The ability to quickly analyze and synthesize large volumes of data significantly reduces the time and effort required to prepare a case. For Mr. Hirji, this meant that he could efficiently organize his legal arguments, respond to court requirements promptly, and stay ahead in his legal battle despite lacking formal legal education. His case underscores the potential for AI to make legal proceedings more efficient and accessible.
Exposing Systemic Failures:
Beyond his personal success, Mr. Hirji's case serves as a powerful critique of the legal system and the Canadian Judicial Council (CJC). By using AI to meticulously scrutinize court records and decisions, by the courts and CJC. Mr. Hirji was able to highlight failures and inconsistencies within the judiciary. His findings point to systemic issues, including judicial misconduct and the inadequacies of the CJC in addressing these problems. This aspect of his journey not only advocates for the broader use of AI in legal practice but also calls for greater accountability and transparency within the judicial system.
Broader Applications of AI:
Mr. Hirji's experience exemplifies the transformative potential of AI in the legal field. His use of algorithmic tools and accurate prompts to navigate complex legal landscapes showcases how technology can empower individuals to seek justice independently. This case advocates for the integration of AI in legal practices to enhance efficiency, reduce costs, and improve access to justice. Moreover, it highlights the necessity for legal reforms to accommodate and leverage technological advancements for the betterment of the justice system.
Conclusion:
Mr. Hirji's journey is a testament to the power of AI in the legal sector. His innovative use of programming skills to break down complex legal issues and build a compelling case illustrates the significant advantages of integrating AI into legal practice. Furthermore, his case sheds light on the systemic failures within the judiciary and the CJC, emphasizing the need for accountability and reform. As AI continues to evolve, its role in the legal field promises to bring about greater efficiency, accessibility, and fairness, ensuring that justice is within reach for all.
It is imperative that all Honourable members of the Canadian Judicial Council acts with the utmost diligence and integrity to address these issues and uphold the principles of justice and fairness.
Kindly acknowledge receipt of this email.
Best regards,
Mohd Ali Hirji