Ruffo (Juge) v. Conseil de la magistrature et autres, (1995) 190 N.R. 1 (SCC)

• Judge: La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin and Iacobucci, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: March 23, 1995
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1995), 190 N.R. 1 (SCC)

Ruffo v. N.B. (1995), 190 N.R. 1 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

....................

L'honorable Andrée Ruffo (appelante) v. Le Conseil de la magistrature, le Comité d'enquête, l'honorable Huguette Saint-Louis, l'honorable Roche St-Germain, l'honorable André Bilodeau, l'honorable Pierre Brassard et M e Paul Laflamme (intimés) et L'honorable Albert Gobeil (mis en cause) et Le procureur général du Québec (mis en cause) et Le procureur général de l'Ontario (intervenant)

(23127)

Indexed As: Ruffo (Juge) v. Conseil de la magistrature et autres

Supreme Court of Canada

La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin and Iacobucci, JJ.

December 14, 1995.

Summary:

The Chief Judge of the Court of Quebec filed a complaint with the Conseil de la magistrature (the Conseil) respecting the conduct of Judge Ruffo also of the Court of Quebec. The Chief Judge alleged that Judge Ruffo, by speaking publicly on certain mat­ters, acted in a manner inconsistent with the Judicial Code of Ethics by breaching her duty to act in a reserved manner and uphold the independence of the judiciary. The Conseil set up a Comité d'enquête to deal with the complaint. Judge Ruffo brought a motion for evocation to set aside the dis­ciplinary proceedings.

The Quebec Superior Court, per Parent, J., in a decision reported [1991] R.J.Q. 2206, dismissed the motion. Judge Ruffo appealed.

The Quebec Court of Appeal, Rothman, J.A., dissenting, in a decision reported 48 Q.A.C. 209, dismissed the appeal. Judge Ruffo appealed again. The two main issues raised were: (1) whether the discipline pro­cedure for provincially appointed judges instituted under ss. 263 and 265 of the Courts of Justice Act (Que.) was constitu­tionally valid in light of the principles of judicial impartiality and independence; and (2) whether s. 8 of the Judicial Code of Ethics, which provided that judges should act in a reserved manner, was void on the ground of vagueness.

The Supreme Court of Canada, Sopinka, J., dissenting, dismissed the appeal. The court held that ss. 263 and 265 did not violate the principles of judicial impartiality and inde­pendence guaranteed by s. 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or s. 23 of the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. Further, the duty to act in a reserved manner under s. 8 of the Judicial Code of Ethics was not unconstitutional for vagueness.

Administrative Law - Topic 2088

Natural justice - Constitution of board or tribunal - Bias - Apprehension of - [See fourth Civil Rights - Topic 3187 ].

Administrative Law - Topic 2093

Natural justice - Constitution of board or tribunal - Bias - Institutional or systemic bias - [See third Civil Rights - Topic 3187 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 3107

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Void for vagueness doctrine - [See Courts - Topic 593 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 3187

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Administrative and noncriminal proceedings - Right to inde­pendent and impartial tribunal - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that the right to be tried by an independent and impartial tribunal is an integral part of the principles of fundamental justice protected by s. 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - See paragraph 38.

Civil Rights - Topic 3187

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Administrative and noncriminal proceedings - Right to inde­pendent and impartial tribunal - The Supreme Court of Canada reviewed its decisions which addressed the issues of judicial impartiality and independence - See paragraphs 39 to 46.

Civil Rights - Topic 3187

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Administrative and noncriminal proceedings - Right to inde­pendent and impartial tribunal - The Que­bec Courts of Justice Act (CJA) estab­lished a council, primarily composed of judges, to adopt an ethics code and a complaint procedure (ss. 263, 265) - The Chief Judge of the Court of Quebec, who was council chairperson, filed a complaint against Judge Ruffo - Judge Ruffo alleged that institutional bias existed if the Chief Judge was allowed to file a complaint because of the Chief Judge's status and moral authority, his powers under the CJA and the possible friendly relationship between the Chief Judge and council members - The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed that the Chief Judge could file a complaint and there was no violation of the principles of judicial impartiality and independence guaranteed by s. 7 of the Canadian Charter or s. 23 of the Quebec Charter - See paragraphs 38 to 102.

Civil Rights - Topic 3187

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Administrative and noncriminal proceedings - Right to inde­pendent and impartial tribunal - The Chief Judge of the Court of Quebec filed a com­plaint with the Conseil de la magistrature (the council) respecting Judge Ruffo - The Chief Judge complained that Judge Ruffo made inappropriate public comments - Judge Ruffo alleged that the council was unable to make an impartial decision because of its precipitousness in handling the complaint and the tone of the Chief Judge's allegations - The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed that there was no precipitous conduct that might give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias - Fur­ther, the tone and language of the com­plaint did not give rise to an apprehension that the members of the council or its committee did not have the necessary impartiality - See paragraphs 80 to 102.

Civil Rights - Topic 8626

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Regulation of guaranteed rights - Vagueness rule - [See Courts - Topic 593 ].

Courts - Topic 455

Judges - Discipline - Complaint - General - [See third Civil Rights - Topic 3187 ].

Courts - Topic 552

Judges - Powers - Ethics - The Supreme Court of Canada traced the development of the role of the Chief Judge of the Court of Quebec with respect to judicial ethics - The court stated that the supervisory powers conferred on the Chief Judge by the present s. 96 of the Courts of Justice Act were not assigned spontaneously by the legislature, but rather are an expression of a reality that is consistent with general practice and gradual developments over time - See paragraphs 52 to 59 - The court agreed with the assertion by an American author that "the chief judge's supervisory powers over ethics are inherent in the exercise of his or her functions and need not be conferred by specific statutory provisions" - See paragraph 58.

Courts - Topic 552

Judges - Powers - Ethics - [See third Civil Rights - Topic 3187 ].

Courts - Topic 593

Judges - Duties - Duty to act in a reserved manner - A complaint was lodged alleging that a judge failed to act in a "reserved manner" as required by rule 8 of the Code of Ethics for judges appointed under the Quebec Courts of Justice Act - The judge sought to quash the discipline proceedings, arguing that s. 8 violated her freedom of expression (Charter, s. 2(b)) - The Supreme Court of Canada held that it was premature to rule on this issue where the judicial committee had not heard the merits of the case - However, the court opined that the duty to act in a reserved manner was not unconstitutional for vagueness - See paragraphs 103 to 113.

Cases Noticed:

Committee for Justice and Liberty Foun­dation et al. v. National Energy Board et al., [1978] 1 S.C.R. 369; 9 N.R. 115, refd to. [paras. 23, 117].

Beauregard v. Canada, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 56; 70 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 38].

Pearlman v. Manitoba Law Society Ju­dicial Committee, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 869; 130 N.R. 121; 75 Man.R.(2d) 81; 6 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. Généreux, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 259; 133 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. Valente, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 673; 64 N.R. 1; 14 O.A.C. 79, refd to. [para. 40].

MacKeigan, J.A. et al. v. Royal Commis­sion (Marshall Inquiry), [1989] 2 S.C.R. 796; 100 N.R. 81; 94 N.S.R.(2d) 1; 247 A.P.R. 1, refd to. [para. 42].

Lippé et autres v. Québec (Procureur général) et autres, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 114; 128 N.R. 1; 39 Q.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 43].

R. v. Lippé - see Lippé et autres v. Qué­bec (Procureur général) et autres.

R. v. Bain, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 91; 133 N.R. 1; 51 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 46].

Newfoundland Telephone Co. v. Board of Commissioners of Public Utilities (Nfld.), [1992] 1 S.C.R. 623; 134 N.R. 241; 95 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 271; 301 A.P.R. 271, refd to. [para. 46].

Idziak v. Canada (Minister of Justice), [1992] 3 S.C.R. 631; 144 N.R. 327; 59 O.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 46].

Restrictive Trade Practices Commission et al. v. Irvine et al., [1987] 1 S.C.R. 181; 74 N.R. 33, refd to. [para. 88].

Consolidated Bathurst Packaging Ltd. v. International Woodworkers of America, Local 2-69 and Labour Relations Board (Ont.), [1990] 1 S.C.R. 282; 105 N.R. 161; 38 O.A.C. 321; 68 D.L.R.(4th) 524; 90 C.L.L.C. 14,007; 42 Admin. L.R. 1, refd to. [para. 100].

MacKay et al. v. Manitoba, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 357; 99 N.R. 116; 61 Man.R.(2d) 270, refd to. [para. 103].

Danson v. Ontario (Attorney General), [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1086; 112 N.R. 362; 41 O.A.C. 250, refd to. [para. 103].

Magder (Paul) Furs Ltd. et al. v. Ontario (Attorney General), [1993] 3 S.C.R. 675; 160 N.R. 161; 67 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 103].

Hy and Zel's Inc. v. Ontario (Attorney General) - see Magder (Paul) Furs Ltd. et al. v. Ontario (Attorney General).

R. v. Nova Scotia Pharmaceutical Society (No. 2), [1992] 2 S.C.R. 606; 139 N.R. 241; 114 N.S.R.(2d) 91; 313 A.P.R. 91, refd to. [para. 105].

Ontario v. Canadian Pacific, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 1031; 183 N.R. 325; 82 O.A.C. 243, refd to. [para. 105].

MacDonald Estate v. Martin and Rossmere Holdings (1970) Ltd., [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1235; 121 N.R. 1; 70 Man.R.(2d) 241; [1991] 1 W.W.R. 705, refd to. [para. 115].

Gray, Administrator of MacDonald Estate - see MacDonald Estate v. Martin and Rossmere Holdings (1970) Ltd.

Martin v. Gray - see MacDonald Estate v. Martin and Rossmere Holdings (1970) Ltd.

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, preamble, sect. 1, sect. 7 [para. 37].

Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, R.S.Q. 1977, c. C-12, sect. 23 [para. 37].

Code of Civil Procedure, R.S.Q. 1977, c. C-25, art. 234 [para. 110].

Constitution Act, 1867, preamble [para. 37].

Courts of Justice Act, An Act to amend the, S.Q. 1945, c. 18, sect. 6 [para. 53].

Courts of Justice Act, R.S.Q. 1964, c. 20, sect. 75 [para. 54].

Courts of Justice Act, An Act to amend the, S.Q. 1988, c. 21, sect. 30 [para. 55].

Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C-43, sect. 49(2)(b) [para. 75]; sect. 49(21) [para. 74]; sect. 51.3, sect. 51.4(1), sect. 51.6(6) [para. 75].

Courts of Justice Act, R.S.Q. 1977, c. T-16, sect. 86 [para. 65]; sect. 89 [para. 69]; sect. 90, sect. 92 [para. 62]; sect. 93 [para. 63]; sect. 95 [para. 37]; sect. 96 [paras. 37, 64]; sect. 100 [para. 64]; sect. 107, sect. 108, sect. 109, sect. 110, sect. 111, sect. 112 [para. 65]; sect. 115, sect. 116, sect. 121 [para. 62]; sect. 130, sect. 131, sect. 132, sect. 134 [para. 63]; sect. 248, sect. 256, sect. 262, sect. 263, sect. 265 [para. 37]; sect. 266 [para. 67]; sect. 268 [paras. 67, 71]; sect. 269, sect. 271, sect. 272, sect. 273 [paras. 37, 71]; sect. 275 [para. 71]; sect. 276 [para. 37]; sect. 277, sect. 279 [para. 67]; sect. 281 [para. 71].

District Magistrates, An Act to amend the Revised Statutes, 1909, respecting, S.Q. 1922, c. 64, sect. 1 [para. 56].

Judges of the Provincial Court Act, R.S.N.S. 1989, c. 238, sect. 15 [para. 52]; sect. 15(2) [para. 76].

Judicial Code of Ethics (1982), 114 G.O. II, 1253, sect. 5 [paras. 37, 69]; sect. 7 [para. 37]; sect. 8 [paras. 37, 103]; sect. 10 [paras. 37, 69].

Provincial Court Act, R.S.B.C. 1979, c. 341, sect. 6.1 [para. 52]; sect. 15(4) [para. 76]; sect. 15(5) [para. 75]; sect. 18(4) [para. 74].

Provincial Court Act, R.S.M. 1987, c. C-275, sect. 8.1 [para. 52]; sect. 32(9) [para. 74]; sect. 36(1) [para. 76]; sect. 37(13) [para. 74].

Provincial Court Act, R.S.N.B. 1973, c. P-21, sect. 6.6(3) [para. 52]; sect. 6.8(1) [para. 76]; sect. 6.9(1)(b) [para. 74]; sect. 6.10(4) [para. 75].

Provincial Court Act, R.S.P.E.I. 1988, c. P-25, sect. 10(1) [para. 76].

Provincial Court Act, S.N. 1991, c. 15, sect. 8 [para. 52]; sect. 8(1)(d) [para. 76]; sect. 16(3) [para. 75].

Provincial Court Act, S.S. 1978, c. 42, sect. 17 [para. 76].

Provincial Court Judges Act, S.A. 1981, c. P-20.1, sect. 9 [para. 52]; sect. 9(c) [para. 76].

Territorial Court Act, R.S.N.W.T. 1988, c. T-2, sect. 5(4) [paras. 52, 76].

Territorial Court Act, R.S.Y. 1986, c. 169, sect. 20 [para. 52].

Authors and Works Noticed:

American Bar Association, Model Rules for Judicial Disciplinary Enforcement (August 1994), generally [para. 74].

Canadian Institute for the Administration of Justice, International Centre for Criminology, Université de Montréal, Compendium of Information on the Status and Role of the Chief Justice in Canada (1981), generally [para. 56].

Canadian Judicial Council, Commentaries on Judicial Conduct (1991), generally [para. 109].

Dion, Léon, Plus de démocratie pour les juges (1981) R. du B. 199, generally [para. 109].

Felsky, Martin, The Berger Affair and the Independence of the Judiciary (1984), 42(1) U.T. Fac. L. Rev. 118, generally [para. 109].

Geyh, Charles Gardner, Means of Judicial Discipline Other Than Those Prescribed by the Judicial Discipline Statute, 28 U.S.C. Section 372(c), in Research Papers of the National Commission on Judicial Discipline and Removal (1993), vol. 1, pp. 713, 756 [para. 58].

Glenn, H. Patrick, La responsabilité des juges (1983), 18 McGill L.J. 228, p. 234 [para. 56].

Glenn, H. Patrick, Professional Structures and Professional Ethics (1990), 35 Mc­Gill L.J. 424, p. 438 [para. 110].

Lambert, Pierre, Les droits relatifs à l'ad­ministration de la justice disciplinaire dans la jurisprudence des organes de la Convention européenne des droits de l'homme, [1995] Rev. trim. dr. h. 161, pp. 164, 165 [para. 88].

Lubet, Steven, Beyond Reproach: Ethical Restrictions on the Extrajudicial Activi­ties of State and Federal Judges (1984), generally [para. 109].

MacKay, A. Wayne, Judicial Free Speech and Accountability: Should Judges Be Seen But Not Heard (1993), 3 N.J.C.L. 159, generally [para. 109].

McCormick, Peter, Judicial Councils for Provincial Judges in Canada (1986), 6 Windsor Y.B. Access Just. 160, pp. 174, 175 [para. 52].

Ouellette, Yves, L'imprécision des codes de déontologie professionnelle (1977), 37 R. du B. 669, p. 671 [para. 111].

Pelland, Léo, Aperçu historique de notre organisation judiciaire depuis 1760 (1933-1934) 12 R. du D. 14, generally [para. 56].

Shetreet, Shimon, and Deschênes, Jules (eds.), Judicial Independence: The Con­temporary Debate (1985), p. 447 et seq. [para. 108].

Thomas, James Burrows, Judicial Ethics in Australia (1988), generally [para. 109].

United Nations, Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary (1988), art. 8 [para. 108].

Universal Declaration on the Independence of Justice (June 1983), art. 2.10 [para. 108].

Webber, Jeremy, The Limits to Judges' Free Speech: A Comment on the Report of the Committee of Investigation into the Conduct of the Hon. Mr. Justice Berger (1984), 29 McGill L.J. 369, generally [para. 109].

Counsel:

Michel Robert, Q.C., and David Platts, for the appellant;

Pierre J. Dalphond and Carole Tremblay, for the respondents;

François Aquin, for the mis en cause, the Honourable Albert Gobeil;

Jean-Yves Bernard and Marise Visocchi, for the mis en cause, the Attorney General of Quebec;

Peter Landmann, for the intervener.

Solicitors of Record:

Langlois Robert, Montréal, Quebec, for the appellant;

McCarthy Tétrault, Montréal, Quebec, for the respondent;

François Aquin, Montréal, Quebec, for the mis en cause, the Honourable Albert Gobeil;

Department of Justice, Sainte-Foy, Que­bec, for the mis en cause, the Attorney General of Quebec;

The Ministry of the Attorney General, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervener.

This appeal was heard on March 23, 1995, before La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin and Iacobucci, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. The decision of the court was delivered in both official languages on December 14, 1995, including the following opinions:

Gonthier, J. (La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Cory, McLachlin and Iacobucci, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 113;

Sopinka, J., dissenting - see paragraphs 114 to 126.