Sunday, November 04, 2012

The Canadian Superior Courts Judges Association and the Canadian Judicial Counsel - All in the family?

"Hey, Canadian Judicial Council do ya know whatcha doin' eh?"

Good Day Readers:

When The National Post's Christie Blatchford wrote about a special meeting involving a Federal Court of Canada Judge and no less than 16 lawyers (Inquiry into Manitoba judges sex scandal stuck in limbo - along with her career, October 30, 2012), although CyberSmokeBlog has not undertaken exhaustive research, the only other newspaper that seemed to cover it was the Ottawa Citizen. One almost gets the impression it was an Illuminati-Freemason style gathering of the clan taxpayers weren't supposed to find out about.

One comment of particular interest was the statement the Canadian Superior Courts Judges Association was represented and the suggestion it is or may be seeking intervener standing. So just who is this CSCJA?
Starting with its webpage (, the President is James P. Adams of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland-Labrador Trial Division (General).
Who is it's Executive Director?
That smiling, handsome gentleman is Mr. Fred McArdle ( and that equally attractive lady with him is, yes, Beverley McLachlin, his wife and Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada ,as well as, Chairwoman of the Canadian Judicial Council. You have to agree my, my what a fine looking couple.

The lawyer representing the Canadian Superior Courts Judges Association is not identified on its webpage. Offline CyberSmokeBlog has asked it's network to identify who represented the CSCJA at the October 30, 2012 meeting, as well as, the names of the other 15 lawyers who participated in the conference call with a Federal Court of Canada Judge and their clients be they individuals or organizations. Yet another conflict of interest in the making? As soon as that information is received it will be posted on this site.

Another lady and CyberSmokeBlog (both laypersons) formally sought intervener standing at the opening of the Douglas Inquiry in May of this year. Although our arguments differed in approach two themes remained the same:

1. As duly constituted the Inquiry had no citizen oversight, therefore, should it be called a "Public" Inquiry? Further, down the road this shortcoming will present it with a serious credibility issue

2. Giving an "Independent" Counsel representing the public omnipotent power that they will flawlessly discharge their duties is a unrealistic assumption. The judicial systems in both Canada and the United States are replete with prosecutorial screw ups by design or otherwise

Both applications were summarily dismissed.

Currently there are three judicial review applications before the the FCC with possibly more in the offing. Good bloody luck! Don't forget to send taxpayers the bill when you've finally sorted out the mess that's called the Douglas Inquiry.

Well Honourable Members of the Inquiry and Counsel how does it feel that the chickens have now come home to  roost? Tried to tell you but nooooo you know everything. Besides, what could individuals who are not lawyers possibly contribute to the process? The .... up in which you find yourselves serves you damn right.

The last word should go to Vancouver-Based CyberSmokBlog contributor Chris J. Budgell who during the past several years has had plenty of dealings with the British Columbia court system, as well as, the CJC. He is a layperson legal researcher par excellence who prefers to work incognito.
 "The Canadian Judicial Council is like a wounded beast."

Clare L. Pieuk


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home