Council still looking into judge suspected of making politica donations

Article content

OTTAWA — Canada’s judicial watchdog says it is still investigating whether an Ontario Superior Court judge made up to three donations to the Liberal party while on the bench, eight months after it was informed of the apparent contributions.

In a statement, Canadian Judicial Council spokesperson Johanna Laporte said the watchdog is still looking into the case of Judge Diana Piccoli.

Article content

Article content

The investigation stems from a report in August by the National Post and the Investigative Journalism Foundation that two Ontario Superior Court judges may have been behind political donations made by individuals with the same name in Elections Canada records.

One was Piccoli of Guelph, Ont., who was appointed to Ontario Superior Court in May 2019. Elections Canada political donations records show that a Diana Piccoli in Guelph made at least three donations to the Liberal Party of Canada since then, including two $300 donations during the 2019 and 2021 federal elections.

The second was a Toronto-based judge whose name, but not address, matched a political donor’s name in Elections Canada’s database.

According to Canadian Judicial Council ethical guidelines, judges must “cease all partisan political activity upon the assumption of judicial office,” such as making political donations.

At the time, neither judge responded to numerous requests for comment from the National Post and the Investigative Journalism Foundation.

Both Laporte and the Ontario Superior Court Chief Justice’s executive legal officer confirmed this week that they have since determined that the second judge was not the same person who made the political donations.

Article content

Article content

But why the review into Piccoli is taking so long is a mystery.

In the new judicial review process, billed by former Justice Minister David Lametti as “world leading,” a complaint against a judge first goes to a screening officer who determines if is reviewable by the council. It can then go to a second screening by a CJC reviewing member, who can dismiss the complaint or refer it to a review panel of three members.

That panel has the power to impose limited sanctions, such as a reprimand, a warning or ordering the judge to apologize or attend counselling, and publish its decision online. If a more severe sanction like a judge’s removal may be in order, the complaint must be referred to a full hearing panel consisting of two CJC members, a judge, a lawyer and a layperson.

The judicial council did not respond to questions about where Piccoli’s review was at in the process. Questions addressed to Piccoli through the Ontario Superior Court’s media office Wednesday went unanswered by deadline.

Article content

In an interview, Richard Devlin, a Dalhousie University professor and the head of the Canadian Association for Legal Ethics, said that the new complaint system remains opaque despite promises by the federal government that it would be a huge improvement.

“The new legislation is an improvement, but it’s not a significant enough improvement,” he said.

“The system stays very opaque,” particularly for complainants who are “essentially irrelevant” to the process and kept in the dark until a decision is made, he added.

That opacity is particularly evident in the case of Piccoli’s review, he noted. In its latest summary of complaints against federally appointed judges published last month, the judicial council published a brief update noting the probe is “still underway.”

“They haven’t dismissed it, that would suggest there’s a genuine concern that there is something that’s worth looking into here,” Devlin said. “My guess would be that it’s likely with a review panel at the moment.”

In a research paper set to be published in Advocates Quarterly and shared with the Post, Devlin and co-author Sheila Wildeman lay out a series of unvarnished critiques of the council and the new complaint process.

Article content

They suggest the government go back to the drawing board and add rights for complainants, additional lay representation, better sanctions that amount to more than a “rap on the knuckles” and requirements that the council offer more substantive information in its annual reports.

“For 50 years, the CJC struggled to establish and maintain legitimacy, but by the 20 teens, it was clear to everyone that it had failed to achieve the goal of promoting public confidence in the administration of justice,” reads their paper.

“Bill C-9 was flawed and the reforms made, glaringly partial,” they continued. “We do not share Minister Lametti’s ‘confidence’ that the ‘bill will put in place a judicial conduct process that will serve Canadians exceptionally well for decades to come’.”

Get more deep-dive National Post political coverage and analysis in your inbox with the Political Hack newsletter, where Ottawa bureau chief Stuart Thomson and political analyst Tasha Kheiriddin get at what’s really going on behind the scenes on Parliament Hill every Wednesday and Friday, exclusively for subscribers. Sign up here.

Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark nationalpost.com and sign up for our daily newsletter, Posted, here.

Article content