Docket: A-244-20
Citation: 2021 FCA 193
| CORAM:
|
STRATAS J.A.
RENNIE J.A.
LASKIN J.A.
|
| BETWEEN:
|
| SAM COSENTINO
|
| Appellant
|
| and
|
| ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
|
| Respondent
|
| and
|
| THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE PETER DALEY
|
| Intervener
|
Heard at Toronto, Ontario, on October 4, 2021.
Judgment delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario, on October 4, 2021.
| REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY:
|
STRATAS J.A.
|
Docket: A-244-20
Citation: 2021 FCA 193
| CORAM:
|
STRATAS J.A.
RENNIE J.A.
LASKIN J.A.
|
| BETWEEN:
|
| SAM COSENTINO
|
| Appellant
|
| and
|
| ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
|
| Respondent
|
| and
|
| THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE PETER DALEY
|
| Intervener
|
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario, on October 4, 2021).
STRATAS J.A.
[1]
The appellant seeks to quash the judgment of the Federal Court that dismissed his application for judicial review: 2020 FC 884 (per Kane J.). The appellant’s application for judicial review in the Federal Court sought to set aside the Canadian Judicial Council’s decision dated April 23, 2019 and sought declaratory relief. The Council dismissed the appellant’s complaint against a judge of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.
[2]
The appeal will be dismissed. We substantially agree with the reasons of the Federal Court. Like the Federal Court, and for many of the reasons it gave, we see no ground to interfere with Council’s decision.
[3]
The appellant submits that the Federal Court erred in failing to include 3,000 pages of additional material in the record before the Court. In our view, even if that material were considered, it would not substantially change the analysis of the Federal Court. Council’s decision was reasonable substantially for the reasons given by the Federal Court.
[4]
The appellant submits that the Council did not deal with his complaint that the judge acted rudely and offensively. He submits that the Federal Court was wrong when (at paras. 26 and 90) it said otherwise.
[5]
In our view, Council and the Federal Court both dealt with this aspect of the complaint: it was an issue going to the procedural fairness of the proceedings before the judge, an issue that, if it had merit, could have been redressed by an appellate court through the normal appeal process. Many other aspects of the appellant’s complaint, such as bias and procedural unfairness, could have been pursued through the normal appellate process. An unbroken line of jurisprudence suggests that matters that can be appealed are not the proper subject of a judicial conduct complaint.
[6]
One aspect of the appellant’s complaint was that the judge lied. We agree with the Federal Court’s reasoning at paras. 85-89.
[7]
Although the order of this Court granting the intervener leave to intervene preserved his ability to seek costs in this appeal, he does not seek costs. The respondent will have his costs.
"David Stratas"
Email this Content