Canadalawcourts.com - Canadian Democracy and Freedom

_{canadian, ombudsman, parliament, society, parliamentary, commitee, public, inquiry, complaint, evidence, misconduct, supreme, court, courts, judgement, government, canada, judicial, judge, decisions, misconduct, fraud, democracy, freedom, canadian, ombudsman, parliament, society, parliamentary, commitee, public, inquiry, complaint, evidence, misconduct, supreme, court, courts, judgement, government, canada, judicial, judge, decisions, misconduct, fraud, democracy, freedom, canadian, ombudsman, parliament, society, parliamentary, commitee, public, inquiry, complaint, evidence, misconduct, supreme, court, courts, judgement, government, canada, judicial, judge, decisions, misconduct, fraud, democracy, freedom, canadian, ombudsman, parliament, society, parliamentary, commitee, public, inquiry, complaint, evidence, misconduct, supreme, court, courts, judgement, government, canada, judicial, judge, decisions, misconduct, fraud, democracy, freedom, canadian, ombudsman, parliament, society, parliamentary, commitee, public, inquiry, complaint, evidence, misconduct, supreme, court, courts, judgement, government, canada, judicial, judge, decisions, misconduct, fraud, democracy, freedom, canadian, ombudsman, parliament, society, parliamentary, commitee, public, inquiry, complaint, evidence, misconduct, supreme, court, courts, judgement, government, canada, judicial, judge, decisions, misconduct, fraud, democracy, freedom, canadian, ombudsman, parliament, society, parliamentary, commitee, public, inquiry, complaint, evidence, misconduct, supreme, court, courts, judgement, government, canada, judicial, judge, decisions, misconduct, fraud, democracy, freedom, canadian, ombudsman, parliament, society, parliamentary, commitee, public, inquiry, complaint, evidence, misconduct, supreme, court, courts, judgement, government, canada, judicial, judge, decisions, misconduct, fraud, democracy, freedom,}

The Need For Change:
Canadian Supreme Court Judges are not accountable, not required to explain anything they do. Canadian Judicial Council is a method of concealing corruption withn Canadian Courts. Judgements being a part of a public record fails to safeguard openness within the Canadian Judiciary including any claim of equality in justice or democracy. Openness is when an ordinary person can ask questions when there has been fraud and judicial misconduct. Judges decisions are not open to scrutiny.

The Need For Change:

Canadian Supreme Court Judges are not accountable, not required to explain anything they do. Canadian Judicial Council is a method of concealing corruption withn Canadian Courts. Judgements being a part of a public record fails to safeguard openness within the Canadian Judiciary including any claim of equality in justice or democracy. Openness is when an ordinary person can ask questions when there has been fraud and judicial misconduct. Judges decisions are not open to scrutiny.

The Way Forward:
Democracy and freedom must be protected. Ordinary Canadian's must be able to ask reasonable questions when there is evidence of fraud or judicial misconduct. Supreme Court Ombudsmen (SCO) is appointed by a parliamentary committee which consists of all political parties. This is an open process. Each province has a (SCO) to over see all complaints and present these findings directly to parliament for consideration on whether or not the evidence supports an examination into the conduct of a judge. When a judgement affects Canadians or generally changes Canadian society the judge may be subject to a a process that may require the judge to explain his reasoning publicly. This is done without any appearance of misconduct and is intended as a method of strengthening an open system of Canadian Justice on the principal that judges are not elected parliamentarians that are unable to change Canadian Society without reasonable explanation and acceptance from the majority of the Canadian public. The process of looking into evidence of misconduct can include convening a hearing before jurors of ordinary people that would review the evidence of misconduct and agree or disagree that there is evidence of misconduct or whether or not the processes continue. These jurors are not appointed by Government or the Courts. Formal hearings shall be limited to only issues of judges conduct. The (SCO) is an arms length fact finding person, not necessarily a lawyer, who is to conduct a review of the evidence regarding any complaint made into the conduct of a Federally Appointed Supreme Court Judge at the request of any complainant. The (SCO) shall have the powers to request legal and expert assistance where necessary in determining the true facts of any complaint. This would involve many people and greatly diminish the impression of bias from the (SCO) as facts would be gathered from different sources. Standardized form will be presented to parliament. The Parliament of Canada would then review this Standardized form and determine whether or not the issue proceed to a full review before the Canadian Judicial Council. This takes no independence away from the Canadian Judiciary yet re-enforces a sense fair play within the courts. Nominal cost would be incurred by the complainant which would be returned should this process result in the removal of the Judge.

The Way Forward:

Democracy and freedom must be protected. Ordinary Canadian's must be able to ask reasonable questions when there is evidence of fraud or judicial misconduct. Supreme Court Ombudsmen (SCO) is appointed by a parliamentary committee which consists of all political parties. This is an open process. Each province has a (SCO) to over see all complaints and present these findings directly to parliament for consideration on whether or not the evidence supports an examination into the conduct of a judge.

When a judgement affects Canadians or generally changes Canadian society the judge may be subject to a a process that may require the judge to explain his reasoning publicly. This is done without any appearance of misconduct and is intended as a method of strengthening an open system of Canadian Justice on the principal that judges are not elected parliamentarians that are unable to change Canadian Society without reasonable explanation and acceptance from the majority of the Canadian public.

The process of looking into evidence of misconduct can include convening a hearing before jurors of ordinary people that would review the evidence of misconduct and agree or disagree that there is evidence of misconduct or whether or not the processes continue. These jurors are not appointed by Government or the Courts. Formal hearings shall be limited to only issues of judges conduct. The (SCO) is an arms length fact finding person, not necessarily a lawyer, who is to conduct a review of the evidence regarding any complaint made into the conduct of a Federally Appointed Supreme Court Judge at the request of any complainant. The (SCO) shall have the powers to request legal and expert assistance where necessary in determining the true facts of any complaint. This would involve many people and greatly diminish the impression of bias from the (SCO) as facts would be gathered from different sources. Standardized form will be presented to parliament. The Parliament of Canada would then review this Standardized form and determine whether or not the issue proceed to a full review before the Canadian Judicial Council. This takes no independence away from the Canadian Judiciary yet re-enforces a sense fair play within the courts. Nominal cost would be incurred by the complainant which would be returned should this process result in the removal of the Judge.

A "Discovery of Evidence" must happen before the Canadian Judicial Council and Government of Canada get their hands on any complaint regarding a federally appointed judge. The Canadian Judicial Council role must be limited to holding formal inquiries only, if anything.

Families and private individuals featured within Government operated Internet sites containing Court decisions that deal with private issues including divorce, child custody and civil litigation that pose no dangers to the general public, names are withheld. The names of individuals who pose risk to the general public, like Judge Blair, including those convicted of fraud, abduction or serious criminal offense are treated differently. Why should anyone have family names exposed to the public on the Internet? This does absolutely nothing for justice, equality of judgements or openness.

[ Beginning of Website ]	[ Introduction to Courts ]
[ Methods of Fraud ]	[ Tell-a-Friend ]
[ Executive Summary ]	[ Editorial Comment Board ]

	Justice Richard Blair must be removed from the Supreme Court.
	Justice Richard Blair must be made to answer questions.