"Judicial Misconduct and Systemic Failures: Heading Toward a Constitutional Crisis in Canada" "Will the Government Act?"
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Mohd Ali Hirji
1084 Lillooet Road,
North Vancouver,
British Columbia V7J2H8. Canada.
Email: [email protected]
TEL: (604) 985-9383
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Canadian Judicial Council
112 Kent Street, Suite 450 Ottawa, ON K1A 0W8
Canada
August 10, 2024
CJC File: 24-0467 (24-0281)
Dear Members of the Canadian Judicial Council,
I acknowledge receipt of your letter dated July 12, 2024.
I must reaffirm that the appellant, Mr. Hirji, has successfully established a prima facie case of judicial misconduct, presenting substantial evidence that Justice Sharma's orders were based on omitted, fabricated, and misstated facts. This key evidence includes documented agreements, communications that directly contradict the trial court's findings and specific exhibits and affidavits that illustrate the defendant's breach of contract and the trial judge's acceptance of false evidence. Furthermore, the appellant has cited relevant legal precedents to support claims of judicial bias and lack of impartiality, thereby establishing significant grounds for alleging misconduct.
Invalidity of the Trial Judge’s Orders
The orders issued by Justice Sharma on November 6, 2015, and March 30, 2016, have been declared void ab initio, meaning they are legally non-existent. As established in R. v. Consolidated Maybrun Mines Ltd., [1998] 1 SCR 706, a decision rendered without jurisdiction is void ab initio and thus legally non-existent. Consequently, no subsequent orders validating these void ab initio orders, including those by the Supreme Court of Canada since 2015, can have any legal effect. These orders, and any actions based on them, are invalid and cannot impose legal obligations on Mr. Hirji.
Establishment of Burden of Proof
Mr. Hirji has met his burden of proof, demonstrating that all originating void ab initio orders, and the subsequent orders validating them, are invalid and non-existent in law. As per Knox v. Canada (Attorney General), 2007 FC 1069 (CanLII), once an order is found to be void ab initio, the focus shifts to addressing the consequences of that void order, including any damages suffered by the affected parties. Therefore, the Hirjis are not obligated to engage further with the court, the respondents, or the Canadian Judicial Council on issues settled by these void ab initio orders.
Non-Applicability of Court Rules and Acts
Given the legal non-existence of the void ab initio orders, no court rules, the Judges Act, case laws, or misleading statements by CJC Screening Officers or executive officials in their correspondence from August 2023 and August 2024 can apply. As Halsbury’s Laws of Canada, Administrative Law (2020 Reissue) confirms, a void ab initio order is treated as though it never existed in law, and no legal consequences or obligations can arise from it. The plaintiff's primary obligation now is to demonstrate the losses suffered due to breaches by state court officials and the fraud resulting from double jeopardy, as established in Kienapple v. The Queen, [1975] 1 SCR 729. The focus should solely be on proving their damages and ensuring adequate compensation.
Abuse of Power and Breach of Duty by the Canadian Judicial Council
The Council’s decision to dismiss my complaint and reconsideration request, while ignoring the facts documented in the court record, constitutes acts that are intentionally false and willfully blind. Such actions are not supported by the court records and amount to an abuse of power and a breach of the duty of care owed to Mr. Hirji by the Canadian Judicial Council. Baker v. Canada Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 SCR 817, emphasizes that administrative bodies must act fairly, reasonably, and based on proper consideration of the facts. Ignoring documented facts, as well as the principles established in Roncarelli v. Duplessis, [1959] SCR 121, may lead to liability for damages due to the abuse of power.
Misleading Statements and Willful Blindness
CJC officials made misleading statements and have acted with willful blindness, particularly in dismissing my valid complaints; these actions are legally actionable. The Supreme Court in Finney v. Barreau du Québec, [2004] 2 SCR 17, ruled that public bodies have a duty to act honestly and fairly, and willful blindness, as established in R. v. Sansregret, [1985] 1 SCR 570, can be construed as an abuse of authority, especially when ignoring facts documented in court records.
Conclusion
It is the position of the Hirjis that once it has been proven that the trial judge's orders or actions are void ab initio, no legal rules or actions can apply to them, as they do not legally exist. This position is supported by the evidence of intentional falsehoods, willful blindness, and misleading conduct by the Canadian Judicial Council, as demonstrated in all CJC letters from August 2023 to August 2024. These actions are legally actionable.
The Hirjis’ primary obligation then becomes demonstrating the damages suffered due to wrongful actions, including breaches by state court officials or instances of fraud, such as double jeopardy.
The Canadian Judicial Council’s dismissal of valid complaints or reconsideration requests, while ignoring documented facts, constitutes an abuse of power and a breach of duty, potentially giving rise to liability.
Following is Summary of the CJC Letter to Mr. Ali Hirji Dated July 12, 2024.
Dear Mr. Ali Hirji,
This letter responds to your correspondence between May 17, 2024, and June 26, 2024, in which you requested a reconsideration of the Council’s decision to dismiss your complaint against Honourable Justice David M. Masuhara of the Supreme Court of British Columbia.
The Council had previously dismissed your complaint against Justice Masuhara in a letter dated December 14, 2023. Following further correspondence between March 12, 2024, and April 11, 2024, you requested a reconsideration of the decision, which the Council dismissed again in a letter dated April 26, 2024.
Reasons for Dismissal:
1. Judicial Review: The Council dismissed your complaint on the basis that it does not have the authority to review or question the decisions made by a judge, including how a judge arrives at findings of fact and law. The Council maintained that such matters are under the jurisdiction of an appellate court, not the Canadian Judicial Council (CJC).
2. Allegations of Abuse of Judicial Discretion: The Council found that you did not provide sufficient information to support your claim that Justice Masuhara abused his judicial discretion. The Council determined that the evidence presented was inadequate to substantiate this allegation.
3. Allegations of Fraud and Criminal Conduct: The Council noted that your significant allegations of fraud and criminal conduct against Justice Masuhara lacked sufficient corroborating evidence. As a result, these allegations were not considered viable for further investigation.
4. Allegations of Bias: Your claim that Justice Masuhara exhibited bias was dismissed because it was primarily based on your disagreement with his findings. The Council emphasized that a mere disagreement with a judge’s decision does not constitute evidence of bias, which requires a higher standard of proof.
You have now requested a reconsideration of the reconsideration of the dismissal of your complaint. In your request, you argue that the Council's decision appears arbitrary and is unsupported by the extensive, undisputed evidence documented in court records. You also express concerns regarding the integrity of the screening process.
Intentionally Misleading Statements and Contradictions by Screening officer.
Given the established fact that the trial judge's orders have been declared void ab initio, the reasoning provided by the Council in dismissing my complaint contains the following flaws and it is intentionally false and willfully blind and misleading statements and contradictions:
1. Judicial Review: The Council's assertion that it cannot review or question the trial judge's decisions is misleading in this context. The orders in question were established as void ab initio, which means they have no legal validity or effect from the outset. The Council has a duty under the Judges Act to investigate misconduct, especially when it involves the validation of legally null orders.
2. Allegations of Abuse of Judicial Discretion: The Council's dismissal based on insufficient evidence overlooks the fact that the orders validated by Justice Masuhara were void ab initio. The validation of such orders itself constitutes an abuse of judicial discretion and misconduct, requiring thorough investigation rather than dismissal.
3. Allegations of Fraud and Criminal Conduct: The Council's dismissal of allegations of fraud and criminal conduct on the grounds of insufficient corroborating evidence is misleading. The validation of void ab initio orders, which were based on fabricated or misstated facts, inherently involves fraudulent actions. This issue should have been fully investigated by the Council.
4. Allegations of Bias: The Council's dismissal of the bias claim due to a perceived lack of cogent evidence fails to account for the void ab initio status of the orders. The fact that these orders were unlawfully validated indicates a possible bias or partiality that should have been investigated.
5. Concerns About the Screening Process: The concerns I raised about the integrity of the screening process are valid, given the Council's apparent failure to address the serious issues of void ab initio orders and judicial misconduct. The dismissal of my complaint without proper consideration of these critical points casts doubt on the fairness and thoroughness of the process.
Under the Judges Act, following duties are mandatory for the Canadian Judicial Council (CJC) and its Screening Officers when investigating complaints about judges. These mandatory duties include:
1. Investigating Complaints: The CJC is required to investigate complaints made against federally appointed judges concerning their conduct. This investigation is mandatory when a complaint raises issues about a judge's ability to discharge their duties.
2. Acting Impartially and Thoroughly: Screening Officers and the CJC must conduct investigations impartially, thoroughly, and based on all relevant facts. This includes ensuring that complaints are not dismissed without proper consideration and that any evidence or issues of misconduct are thoroughly examined.
3. Reporting Findings: After an investigation, the CJC must report its findings and, where appropriate, recommend further actions, such as disciplinary measures or removal from office.
4. Duty of Care: The CJC and its officers have a duty of care to act in good faith and with due diligence when handling complaints, ensuring that all actions comply with the principles of fairness and justice.
Therefore, it is mandatory for the CJC and Screening Officers to investigate complaints under the Judges Act, adhering to these principles. Failure to do so may constitute a breach of duty and could be legally actionable.
Mandatory Duties Under the Judges Act
Under the Judges Act, the following duties are mandatory for the Canadian Judicial Council (CJC) and its Screening Officers when investigating complaints about judges:
1. Investigating Complaints: The CJC is required to investigate complaints made against federally appointed judges concerning their conduct. This investigation is mandatory, particularly when a complaint raises issues about a judge's ability to discharge their duties.
2. Acting Impartially and Thoroughly: Screening Officers and the CJC must conduct investigations impartially, thoroughly, and based on all relevant facts. This includes ensuring that complaints are not dismissed without proper consideration and that any evidence or issues of misconduct are thoroughly examined.
3. Reporting Findings: After an investigation, the CJC must report its findings and, where appropriate, recommend further actions, such as disciplinary measures or removal from office.
4. Duty of Care: The CJC and its officers have a duty of care to act in good faith and with due diligence when handling complaints, ensuring that all actions comply with the principles of fairness and justice.
Failure to Adhere to Mandatory Duties
Despite these mandatory obligations, the CJC and its Screening Officers have made intentionally misleading statements and exhibited contradictions in dismissing my complaint, particularly regarding the established fact that the trial judge's orders have been declared void ab initio. The flaws in their reasoning include:
1. Judicial Review: The Council’s assertion that it cannot review or question the trial judge’s decisions is misleading in this context. Given that the orders in question were established as void ab initio—meaning they have no legal validity or effect from the outset—the Council has a duty under the Judges Act to investigate misconduct, especially when it involves the validation of legally null orders.
2. Allegations of Abuse of Judicial Discretion: The Council’s dismissal based on insufficient evidence overlooks the fact that the orders validated by Justice Masuhara were void ab initio. The validation of such orders itself constitutes an abuse of judicial discretion and misconduct, requiring thorough investigation rather than dismissal.
3. Allegations of Fraud and Criminal Conduct: The Council’s dismissal of allegations of fraud and criminal conduct on the grounds of insufficient corroborating evidence is misleading. The validation of void ab initio orders, which were based on fabricated or misstated facts, inherently involves fraudulent actions. This issue should have been fully investigated by the Council.
4. Allegations of Bias: The Council’s dismissal of the bias claim due to a perceived lack of cogent evidence fails to account for the void ab initio status of the orders. The fact that these orders were unlawfully validated indicates a possible bias or partiality that should have been investigated.
5. Concerns About the Screening Process: The concerns I raised about the integrity of the screening process are valid, given the Council’s apparent failure to address the serious issues of void ab initio orders and judicial misconduct. The dismissal of my complaint without proper consideration of these critical points casts doubt on the fairness and thoroughness of the process.
Conclusion
The CJC and its Screening Officers are mandated by the Judges Act to investigate complaints thoroughly and impartially. Their failure to do so, particularly in cases involving void ab initio orders, represents a breach of their duty of care and an abuse of power. These failures are legally actionable and have significant implications for the integrity of the judicial oversight process.
Following is mandatory on the CJC and Screening officers to investigate under the Judges Act:
“Validation of a Void Ab Initio Order”
The validation of a void ab initio order constitutes misconduct, as it violates the integrity and propriety expected of judges under the Ethical Principles for Judges, particularly the principles of integrity, impartiality, and competence. The Canadian Judicial Council's by- laws and Section 63 of the Judges Act empower the Council to investigate complaints of misconduct, which includes actions that undermine the integrity of the judicial process.
Therefore, it is mandatory for the CJC and Screening Officers to investigate any allegations involving the validation of void ab initio orders.
Conclusion: The evidence demonstrates that the CJC and Screening Officers engaged in intentionally false, willfully blind, and misleading acts, in violation of Section 63 of the Judges Act, which mandates the investigation of judicial misconduct.
Judicial Misconduct
It is mandatory for the Canadian Judicial Council (CJC) and Screening Officers to investigate complaints involving potential judicial misconduct, including the validation of void ab initio orders. This duty is outlined in Section 63 of the Judges Act, which requires the CJC to review complaints against federally appointed judges, and Section 6.1 of the CJC By-Laws, which mandates a thorough examination of any complaints that may affect the integrity, impartiality, or competence of the judiciary. The Ethical Principles for Judges further emphasize the obligation to address any conduct that could undermine public confidence in the judicial system.
Conclusion: The evidence demonstrates that the CJC and Screening Officers failed to fulfill their mandatory duties under Section 63 of the Judges Act and Section 6.1 of the CJC By-Laws, by not thoroughly investigating the validation of void ab initio orders, thereby undermining public confidence in the judicial system.
Summary of Key Established Facts Against Federally Appointed Judges:
1. Judicial Misconduct: The trial judge fabricated evidence and misused judicial authority, leading to the issuance of orders that have been declared void ab initio.
2. Failure to Uphold Judicial Duty: The affidavit establishes that judges, including those in appellate courts, failed in their duty by not setting aside these void ab initio orders, and instead, they validated them.
3. Validation of Void Orders: The document asserts that various judges, including those at the Supreme Court of Canada, knowingly validated void ab initio orders, thereby perpetuating a miscarriage of justice.
4. Neglect of Duties and Bias: The affidavit claims that judges systematically ignored unopposed evidence presented at trial and exhibited bias by aligning with the opposing party without due consideration of the facts.
5. Abuse of Power: The judges are accused of abusing their judicial power by failing to correct the void ab initio orders, thereby violating the appellant’s rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
6. Systemic Failure: The affidavit suggests that the Canadian Judicial Council and other judicial bodies failed to address these issues adequately, thereby allowing the validation of void ab initio orders to stand.
These allegations are directed against specific judges and the broader judicial system, including the Canadian Judicial Council, for failing to investigate and address these claims properly.
Explanation: Judicial Misconduct and the Judges Act
Under the Judges Act, judicial misconduct, including the fabrication of evidence and misuse of judicial authority, is subject to mandatory investigation by the Canadian Judicial Council (CJC) and its Screening Officers.
Supporting Sections:
1. Judges Act, Section 63(2): This section mandates that any complaint regarding the conduct of a federally appointed judge, including allegations of judicial misconduct, must be reviewed and investigated by the CJC. This includes the fabrication of evidence or misuse of judicial authority, as these actions directly impact the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.
Conclusion: The CJC is required to investigate any allegations of judicial misconduct under Section 63(2), and failure to do so constitutes a breach of its statutory obligations.
2. CJC By-Laws, Paragraph 6.7(2): This by-law outlines the criteria for the reconsideration of complaints. If a complaint, such as one involving judicial misconduct, is dismissed, it may be reviewed again if new evidence or a significant issue, such as the validity of judicial orders, comes to light.
Conclusion: The CJC must reconsider previously dismissed complaints if new evidence emerges, ensuring that serious allegations of judicial misconduct are adequately addressed.
3. Ethical Principles for Judges, Section 6: The ethical principles emphasize the importance of judicial integrity and impartiality. Allegations of fabricating evidence or misusing judicial authority are serious breaches of these ethical standards and would require investigation to maintain public confidence in the judiciary.
Conclusion: The CJC and its Screening Officers are obligated to investigate allegations of judicial misconduct to uphold the ethical standards and maintain public trust in the judicial system.
Summary:
In summary, a Screening Officer is mandated to investigate such allegations under the Judges Act, supported by the CJC by-laws and the ethical principles governing judicial conduct. Failure to investigate these serious allegations would not only breach statutory duties but also undermine public confidence in the judiciary.
Explanation: Failure to Uphold Judicial Duty
The Judges Act requires the mandatory investigation of complaints concerning the conduct of federally appointed judges, especially when allegations are made regarding their failure to uphold judicial duties.
Supporting Sections:
1. Judges Act, Section 63(2): This section mandates that the CJC must review and investigate complaints against the conduct of judges. The failure to uphold judicial duties, such as not setting aside void ab initio orders and instead validating them, falls under this mandate because it concerns the integrity and proper functioning of the judiciary.
2. CJC By-Laws, Paragraph 6.7(2): This by-law provides that a complaint may be reconsidered if significant issues, such as a judge's failure to fulfill their judicial duties, are brought forward. The validation of void ab initio orders is a critical issue that would likely warrant investigation under this provision.
3. Ethical Principles for Judges, Section 6: Judges are expected to maintain the highest standards of integrity, impartiality, and judicial conduct. Failing to set aside void ab initio orders and instead validating them would be a serious breach of these ethical obligations, necessitating an investigation to ensure the judiciary’s integrity is maintained.
In summary, the failure to uphold judicial duty as alleged in the affidavit is a matter that the screening officer is required to investigate under the Judges Act, supported by therelevant CJC by-laws and ethical principles.
Explanation: Validation of Void Orders
The Judges Act and the ethical framework guiding the Canadian Judicial Council (CJC) make it mandatory for Screening Officers to investigate serious allegations such as the validation of void orders, especially when these actions involve a potential miscarriage of justice.
Supporting Sections:
1. Judges Act, Section 63(2): This section mandates that the CJC must review and investigate complaints regarding the conduct of judges. The validation of void orders, particularly when done knowingly and resulting in a miscarriage of justice, directly concerns judicial conduct and integrity, making such investigations mandatory.
2. CJC By-Laws, Paragraph 6.7(2): These by-laws stipulate that complaints may be reconsidered if new and significant issues arise, such as the improper validation of void orders. This provision is crucial for ensuring that judges adhere to their judicial responsibilities and that their actions do not compromise justice.
3. Ethical Principles for Judges, Section 6: This section emphasizes the importance of integrity, impartiality, and upholding the law without fear or favor. Knowingly validating void orders would violate these ethical standards, necessitating an investigation by the CJC to maintain public confidence in the judiciary.
Summary:
The validation of void orders by judges, as asserted in the document, is a serious allegation that mandates investigation under the Judges Act, supported by the CJC by- laws and the Ethical Principles for Judges. Failure to investigate such allegations would undermine the integrity of the judicial system and public trust in its fairness.
Explanation: Neglect of Duties and Bias
The Judges Act and the ethical standards governing the Canadian Judicial Council (CJC) make it mandatory for Screening Officers to investigate allegations of neglect of judicial duties and bias, especially when these involve claims of systematically ignoring evidence and showing bias in favor of one party.
Supporting Sections:
1. Judges Act, Section 63(2): This section mandates that the CJC must investigate complaints regarding the conduct of judges. Allegations of neglecting duties and showing bias, particularly by ignoring unopposed evidence, directly relate to judicial conduct and impartiality, making such investigations necessary.
2. CJC By-Laws, Paragraph 6.7(2): These by-laws allow for the reconsideration of complaints if significant issues like neglect of duties or bias are raised. The failure to properly consider unopposed evidence and allegations of bias are serious concerns that must be addressed to ensure judicial fairness and integrity.
3. Ethical Principles for Judges, Section 3 (Impartiality): This section emphasizes that judges must act impartially and without bias. Systematically ignoring evidence or showing bias undermines public confidence in the judiciary and violates these ethical principles, requiring thorough investigation.
Summary:
The claims of neglect of duties and bias by judges are serious allegations that Screening Officers are mandated to investigate under the Judges Act, supported by the CJC by- laws and the Ethical Principles for Judges. Failure to investigate these allegations would compromise the integrity of the judicial process and public trust in its fairness.
Explanation: Abuse of Power
The Judges Act and the ethical standards governing the Canadian Judicial Council (CJC) make it mandatory for Screening Officers to investigate allegations of abuse of judicial power, particularly when such allegations involve violations of an individual's rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
领英推荐
Supporting Sections:
1. Judges Act, Section 63(2): This section mandates that the CJC must investigate complaints regarding judicial conduct. Allegations of abuse of power, especially when they involve a failure to correct void orders and potential violations of Charter rights, are serious matters that fall within the scope of judicial conduct and require thorough investigation.
2. Ethical Principles for Judges, Section 6 (Diligence): Judges are expected to perform their duties diligently, including correcting errors. The failure to address void orders could be seen as neglecting this duty, which must be investigated to ensure the integrity of the judicial process.
3. Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Section 24(1): This section provides that anyone whose Charter rights have been infringed or denied may apply to a court for a remedy. Allegations that judges failed to correct void orders, thus violating Charter rights, must be investigated to determine if judicial conduct has breached these constitutional protections.
Summary:
The allegation of abuse of power by judges, particularly when it implicates potential violations of Charter rights, is mandatory for Screening Officers to investigate under the Judges Act. This requirement is further supported by the ethical principles for judges and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Failure to investigate such allegations would undermine both judicial integrity and constitutional rights.
Explanation: Systemic Failure
The Judges Act and the ethical guidelines governing the Canadian Judicial Council (CJC) make it mandatory for Screening Officers to investigate allegations of systemic failure within the judiciary, especially when such failures involve the validation of void orders.
Supporting Sections:
1. Judges Act, Section 63(2): This section requires the CJC to investigate complaints regarding judicial conduct. Allegations of systemic failure within the judiciary, including the failure to address and correct void orders, fall within the scope of judicial conduct and must be thoroughly investigated.
2. Ethical Principles for Judges, Section 1 (Judicial Independence) and Section 6 (Diligence): Judges are obligated to ensure the integrity and independence of the judiciary, which includes addressing errors and void orders. A systemic failure to correct such issues raises serious concerns about the integrity of the judicial process and necessitates investigation.
3. CJC By-Laws, Section 5: This section mandates the CJC to maintain public confidence in the judiciary by addressing all valid complaints, particularly those that suggest a systemic issue affecting the fairness and integrity of the judicial process.
Summary:
Allegations of systemic failure, particularly those that result in the validation of void orders, are serious matters that Screening Officers are mandated to investigate under the Judges Act. This obligation is further supported by the ethical principles and CJC by- laws that govern judicial conduct. Failing to investigate such allegations would undermine public confidence in the judiciary and compromise the integrity of the judicial system.
Consequences of Violations:
1. Fraud on the Plaintiff:
o Yes. If a Screening Officer intentionally fails to investigate mandatory allegations, such as the validation of void orders, this constitutes fraud on the plaintiff, as it deprives them of a fair judicial process.
o Supporting Sections:
? Judges Act, Section 63(2): Mandates the investigation of complaints regarding judicial conduct. Failure to investigate may be seen as an intentional act of omission, potentially amounting to fraud.
? Ethical Principles for Judges, Section 2 (Integrity): Judges and those acting under judicial authority must maintain integrity. Deliberate failure to investigate breaches this principle and contributes to fraudulent behavior.
2. Violation of Public Confidence:
o Yes. The failure to investigate erodes public confidence in the judiciary, which is a fundamental duty imposed on the CJC.
o Supporting Sections:
? CJC By-Laws, Section 5: Requires actions that maintain public confidence in the judiciary. Ignoring mandatory investigations undermines this confidence and constitutes a violation of the by- law.
3. Breach of Judicial Independence and Integrity:
o Yes. Failure to investigate breaches the principles of judicial independence and integrity, which are essential to the justice system.
o Supporting Sections:
? Ethical Principles for Judges, Section 1 (Judicial Independence) and Section 6 (Diligence): Obligates due diligence in upholding the law and maintaining judicial independence. Failure to investigate undermines these principles.
Summary:
The law and maintaining judicial independence. Failure to investigate undermines these principles.
A failure by Screening Officers to fulfill their mandatory duty to investigate under the Judges Act has severe legal and ethical consequences. These include constituting fraud on the plaintiff, eroding public confidence, and breaching fundamental judicial principles. Such failures compromise the integrity of the judicial process and violate the standards set by the Judges Act, CJC by-laws, and the Ethical Principles for Judges.
Blatant Refusal by the Screening Officers
The refusal by the Screening Officers to accept well-established legal principles and their abuse of power has significantly exacerbated the Plaintiff's damages and undermined the integrity of the judicial system. As members of the Canadian Judicial Council (CJC), you are constitutionally mandated under the Judges Act to uphold the integrity of the judiciary and thoroughly investigate allegations of judicial misconduct. However, the collective failure to address the void ab initio orders and the associated misconduct represents a serious dereliction of this duty.
Persistent Abuse of Power
This persistent abuse of power, coupled with the CJC Screening Officers’ intentional refusal to fulfill their mandatory duty to investigate the validation of void orders by successive courts, necessitates placing each member of the Canadian Judicial Council listed below on formal notice of the intentionally misleading and fraudulent acts committed by the Screening Officers. This action is necessary to ensure that the full membership is aware of their legal and ethical responsibilities, as well as their duty of care owed to Mr. Hirji, and the severe implications of their inaction.
Hon. Chief Justice of Canada Richard Wagner, Chairman
As the Chief Justice of Canada and Chairman of the Canadian Judicial Council, your role is essential in upholding the integrity and constitutional responsibilities of the judiciary. I write to you with the utmost respect for your office, but also with serious concerns regarding the handling of my case by the Supreme Court of Canada over the past few years.
Supporting Evidence and Rationale for Recusal
Based on the documents I have submitted, which include detailed letters addressed to you and other members of the Supreme Court of Canada, there are significant concerns regarding the Court's actions in relation to my case. These documents outline the following key issues:
? Allegations of Serious Misconduct: The letters express concerns that the Supreme Court, under your leadership, has not fulfilled its constitutional duties, particularly with respect to the proper handling and setting aside of void ab initio orders on more than two occasions. These concerns are rooted in allegations of judicial misconduct.
? Potential Conflict of Interest: The documents suggest that, due to your involvement in decisions related to these matters, a conflict of interest exists. This concern is compounded by the potential involvement of other justices in decisions that may be perceived as inconsistent with constitutional principles.
? Request for Recusal and Independent Review: Given the gravity of these concerns, the documents strongly advocate for your recusal, along with any other justices who may be implicated, to allow for an independent and unbiased investigation by external parties.
? References to Legal and Ethical Obligations: The letters reference potential violations of the Supreme Court Act, the Judges Act, and international human rights obligations. These references highlight the need for strict adherence to legal standards and ethical principles.
Conclusion
The records support the need for careful consideration of the concerns raised. Given the serious nature of these allegations, which include conflicts of interest and a failure to uphold constitutional duties, I respectfully request that you and any other justices who may be implicated recuse yourselves from this matter. This would allow for an independent investigation, ensuring that the principles of justice and fairness are upheld.
By stepping aside, you would not only protect the integrity of the judicial process but also reinforce public confidence in the judiciary, demonstrating a commitment to justice that is both impartial and free from any potential bias.
("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")
("The Honourable Kent Davidson, 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 Heather J Holmes, interim 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")
("The Honourable R. Lester Jesudason, 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 Susan Cooper, interim 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
Gabrielle St-Hilaire, 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")
Notice of Bad Faith and Refusal to Act by the Canadian Judicial Council
This letter serves as formal notice that each member of the Canadian Judicial Council (CJC) was informed of this situation and owed a duty of care to Mr. Hirji to investigate the complaint. Your refusal to investigate the void ab initio orders constitutes serious judicial misconduct and contradicts your constitutionally mandated duties under the Judges Act.
Demands and Expectations
1. Immediate Investigation:
o We demand an immediate and thorough investigation into the void ab initio orders and the judicial misconduct involved.
2. Accountability:
o Hold those responsible for this miscarriage of justice accountable, including any judges who have acted in bad faith or neglected their duties.
3. Restitution:
o Ensure full restitution and compensation for the damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the judicial system’s failures, through the Minister of Justice.
4. Public Statement:
o Issue a public statement acknowledging the misconduct and outlining the steps the CJC will take to prevent such occurrences in the future.
Conclusion
Your roles as members of the Canadian Judicial Council are critical to maintaining public confidence in the judiciary. It is imperative that you fulfill your duties and address this matter with the seriousness it deserves. Failure to do so will not only perpetuate the injustice suffered by the plaintiff but will also undermine the integrity of the Canadian judicial system.
Sincerely,
Mohd Ali Hirji
Reference Items:
?
7 个月Terrible situation here. Accountability in the legal community is at zero.? Change is needed imitately.?