Bill C-9 rewrote the Judges Act to change how federally appointed judges in Canada are disciplined and, in the most serious cases, removed from the bench. The Act received Royal Assent on June 22, 2023 and is now law as S.C. 2023, c. 18.1Parliament of Canada. Royal Assent – An Act to Amend the Judges Act It replaces the inquiry-committee framework that had governed judicial conduct since 1971 with a staged review process, brings members of the public onto discipline panels, and gives the Canadian Judicial Council a set of sanctions between doing nothing and recommending removal.
Which Judges the Law Covers
The amended Judges Act applies to every judge appointed by the federal government. That includes the Supreme Court of Canada, the Federal Court of Appeal, the Federal Court, the Tax Court of Canada, and the superior courts in each province and territory. Section 2 defines “judge” to include chief justices, senior associate and associate chief justices, supernumerary judges, and regional senior judges.2Department of Justice Canada. Judges Act RSC 1985 c J-1 – Section 2
Judges appointed by provincial governments to provincial courts are not covered. They fall under separate provincial oversight bodies. If the federal government made the appointment, the Judges Act governs; if a province did, it does not.
Grounds That Can Trigger Discipline or Removal
Section 80 of the amended Act sets out four grounds on which a judge can be removed from office:
- Infirmity, meaning a physical or mental condition that prevents the judge from carrying out their duties.
- Misconduct.
- Failure in the due execution of judicial office.
- Placing themselves, by conduct or otherwise, in a position incompatible with the office as viewed by a reasonable, fair-minded, and informed observer.
Removal is justified only where the judge’s continued service would undermine public confidence in their impartiality, integrity, or independence to the point that they can no longer perform the role.3Department of Justice Canada. Judges Act RSC 1985 c J-1 – Section 80 These same four grounds also frame what complaints can move through the process at all. Anything outside them is filtered out early.
The Staged Review Process
The core structural change in Bill C-9 is a series of filters. Straightforward complaints are resolved quickly; serious allegations move deeper into the system.
Screening Officer
A screening officer, typically a judge designated by the Council, conducts the first assessment. Complaints that are clearly without merit or fall outside the section 80 grounds are dismissed here. Complaints alleging sexual harassment, sexual misconduct, or discrimination on a ground listed in the Canadian Human Rights Act cannot be dismissed at this stage. Those automatically move forward.4Department of Justice Canada. Bill C-9 – An Act to Amend the Judges Act
Reviewing Member
A complaint that survives screening goes to a reviewing member of the Canadian Judicial Council. This is the first stage at which the judge whose conduct is at issue can make written submissions. The reviewing member applies the same criteria as the screening officer and either dismisses the complaint with written reasons or sends it to a review panel.
Review Panel
The review panel has three members: a Council member, a judge who is not on the Council, and a lay person who has never been a lawyer or paralegal in Canada.5Department of Justice Canada. Questions and Answers – Bill C-9 It can dismiss the complaint, impose sanctions short of removal, or refer the matter to a hearing panel if removal could be justified.6Department of Justice Canada. Judges Act RSC 1985 c J-1 – Section 102
Hearing Panels
There are two kinds. A reduced hearing panel, made up of a Council member, a judge, and a lawyer, reviews alternative sanctions imposed by a review panel. It can confirm, vary, or set aside those sanctions, and it can refer the case upward if it concludes removal could be justified.
A full hearing panel handles cases where removal is on the table. It has five members: two Council members, one judge, one lawyer, and one lay person.5Department of Justice Canada. Questions and Answers – Bill C-9 Its proceedings are open to the public, and its decisions and reasons are published.
When a full hearing panel concludes that removal is warranted, it makes a recommendation to the Council. If the Council agrees, the recommendation goes to the Minister of Justice. Actual removal still requires a joint address from the House of Commons and the Senate, the constitutional safeguard that existed before the reform.
Sanctions Short of Removal
Under the previous framework, the Council’s only substantive option for confirmed misconduct was to recommend removal. Everything else was informal. Section 102 of the amended Act now gives review panels a graduated set of tools:
- Expressions of concern, private or public.
- Warnings or reprimands, private or public.
- Orders to apologize, privately or publicly, in whatever manner the panel considers appropriate.
- Remedial orders, such as attending counselling or continuing education.
- Any other action the panel deems appropriate, with the judge’s consent.
These are designed for misconduct that is real but does not warrant removal.6Department of Justice Canada. Judges Act RSC 1985 c J-1 – Section 102 Before the reform, the gap between doing nothing and recommending removal meant that many substantiated complaints produced no meaningful response.
Filing a Complaint
Anyone can file a complaint about a federally appointed judge through the Canadian Judicial Council’s online complaint form. The form asks for the judge’s name, the court and its location, the case number, the dates of the conduct, and a factual description of what happened in enough detail that a reviewer can assess it.7Canadian Judicial Council. Filing a Complaint
The Council does not want complainants to attach court transcripts, affidavits, medical reports, or financial documents. Supporting documents are not required in most cases, and if transcripts or recordings are needed the Council obtains them directly. There is no fee.
Members of the Public on Panels
One of the most visible changes is the inclusion of lay persons, defined as members of the public who have never been judges, lawyers, or notaries, on review and hearing panels. The Act requires the Council to ensure, as far as possible, that its lay person roster reflects the diversity of the Canadian population.5Department of Justice Canada. Questions and Answers – Bill C-9 Roster members serve four-year terms.8Canadian Judicial Council. Complaint Review Procedures Before the reform, conduct reviews were handled almost entirely by other judges.
Salary, Pension, and Legal Costs During Removal Proceedings
Bill C-9 added financial mechanisms that did not exist before. Once a full hearing panel notifies a judge that it is recommending removal, the day after that notification is treated as the judge’s last day in office for salary purposes. The judge stops being paid.
Pension accrual can also be suspended during the process. Judges in this position continue to receive any salary increases and are not required to make pension contributions during the suspension. If the removal recommendation is ultimately rejected, the pension clock resumes as if it had never been interrupted.4Department of Justice Canada. Bill C-9 – An Act to Amend the Judges Act
The Act also limits what the public purse covers for a judge’s legal fees during conduct proceedings and specifically bars payment to a judge’s counsel for challenging a decision under the complaints process through judicial review. This responded to cases under the old system where legal costs reached the millions.
Appeals
The appeal mechanism is entirely new. Under the previous framework, a judge’s main avenue for challenging the process was federal court, which added years and expense. Either the judge or the presenting counsel can now appeal a hearing panel’s decision to an appeal panel of three Council members and two roster judges. The appeal panel has the powers of a court of appeal: it can affirm, vary, or reverse the decision and can make any decision the hearing panel could have made.4Department of Justice Canada. Bill C-9 – An Act to Amend the Judges Act
Appeal proceedings are public, and decisions are published unless publication would not be in the public interest. The panel works from the record before the hearing panel, with written and oral submissions from both sides; new evidence is admitted only in exceptional circumstances.
Beyond the appeal panel, either side may seek leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. The Act specifically bars other forms of judicial review, keeping the process inside the dedicated structure rather than allowing collateral litigation in the regular courts.