Judicial misconduct denying Mandamus
Judicial misconduct denying Mandamus
and Justice Lyster's failure to attend court on Feb 14, 2022 and other problems...
If you prefer to listen I’ll read it for you. How about that for public service?
My letter to the Canadian Judicial Council, July 18, 2024
On December 3, 2021 I attended Court with Justice Lyster presiding and after hearing my argument she deferred her decision until Feb 14, 2022. On that day I attended and the Public Prosecutor was present but Justice Lyster was not. A dereliction of duty.
The judge that was there knew nothing and could find no reason for Lyster's failure to attend and the best that he could do was to suggest we return in two weeks, when Justice Lyster did show up, and when I asked her for an explanation, she responded, "on holiday".
A failure to do her duty according to 80 (c) of the Judges Act.
Unfortunately the decision also very strongly suggests a political bias as David Lametti was the Minister who appointed her as a judge only a year earlier.
Unfortunately Justice Lyster also denied a recusal request regarding a perception of bias which I feel is clear to the reasonably well informed observer, who is a member of the public, and not a member of a Law Society or the Judiciary.
Lyster was the member of the team at LEAF who made a judicial conduct complaint regarding Justice Robin Camp for his comments in court to a woman alleging rape on a bathroom sink but my evidence was of a man alleging corruption by a judge protecting a lawyer committing fraud on a court order and I had the best evidence that any Canadian could provide, the transcript.
Justice Lyster's complete denial of my lived experience as “irrelevant” because I am male, and yet hold a contrary perspective for a woman alleging rape, suggesting that a judge should never question her claim.
I believe that fits the test for judicial misconduct, "Is the conduct alleged so manifestly and profoundly destructive of the concept of the impartiality, integrity and independence of the judicial role, that public confidence would be sufficiently undermined to render the judge incapable of executing the judicial office?"
I know now that her failure to attend was because the Minister of Justice was enforcing the Emergencies Act on that day and my request before the court was for a writ of mandamus on the Minister of Justice, David Lametti; as I presented a documented failure in the rule of law throughout the Canadian legal system, including the Canadian Judicial Council approving of Justice Shaw's conduct, rejecting the transcript to protect a lawyer committing fraud on a court order.
Justice Lyster's decision was delayed several more times until my request for accountability from the Minister of Justice was dismissed as "irrelevant". My evidence included the assertion that the Minister of Justice lied in writing regarding his duties in order to avoid protecting the public and ensuring that the administration was in compliance with the law.
Some of the evidence before the Court included the acceptance of a complaint regarding Lametti to the Parliamentary Ethics Commissioner and the RCMP threatening to "destroy evidence" when I contacted them regarding the false and misleading statements.
There was no dispute regarding the evidence including the failure of the Attorney General of the Province of BC and of Canada to respond to the enforcement procedure of the Charter, the governing constitution of Canada and an unanswered constitutional question on the matter before the court.
The Public Prosecution ended up dropping one of the charges in the public interest. The other charge is waiting at the BC Court of Appeal for evidence deemed to be relevant, to be provided by the Registry, but they have refused to comply with the court order for court audio for over a year.
Part of that request relates to a complaint that I made in 2007 regarding a judge who had the transcript altered subsequent to a complaint to the Canadian Judicial Council and the judicial council claiming they had discretion over their acceptance of all evidence, including the transcript. That a judicial opinion was better than evidence.
How does a Canadian access justice under this regime?
Thank you for accepting my right to make a complaint.
Trevor Holsworth
Other Judicial misconduct complaints on my substack
Complaint to Chief Justice of BC Provincial Court
Justice Lyster
Recusal request - Justice Lyster
A further recusal request, along with lots of other goodies
Judge Shaw and the CJC
Some more details on Judge Shaw
The abusive system that is the Canadian Judicial Council
My suggestion for reform of the Judging of judicial misconduct as clearly Judges are not capable of judging themselves. Nobody can be a judge in their own cause. That is a principle of fundamental justice. The citizens of Canada are the acknowledged most legitimate judges of judicial conduct.
Thanks for reading. A similar concept is appropriate for a number of other applications like law societies, police misconduct boards, parliamentarians.
The Jury system is long recognized as a bulwark against tyranny.
“It has become increasingly evident that our procedures for dealing with serious judicial conduct complaints are outmoded, slow, and opaque. Furthermore, while Canadians expect transparency and accountability, we continue to operate under 1970s models of judicial administration.” - The Chief Justice Himself.
Also from the Chief Justice, “We must remember that confidence in our justice system relies not only on justice being done, but also on justice being seen to be done. To me, this means that we must take concerns that are raised by litigants and other members of civil society about transparency, privacy and procedural fairness seriously,” Is any Judicial body in the Justice System really taking "concerns that are raised by litigants ...seriously?"
The Chief Justice again, "We can take pride in our judicial system, and how it serves Canadians with fairness and impartiality,”
"Judges have judicial immunity and bear no liability for their judicial errors" - Why?
The "COA" also affirmed the test for establishing a reasonable apprehension of bias, saying, “that the seemingly gratuitous statement of the Trial Judge concerning the appellant's credibility before the conclusion of the trial was not appropriate and raised a serious issue regarding the Trial Judge's impartiality” Accordingly, a new trial was ordered.” However not in my case - why?
Is it any wonder that the Canadian Justice System has become: "A nightmare of bias, incompetence, and unchecked power and the judicial system has no one to blame for this but themselves". “Our justice system is self-destructing before our eyes because too many lawyers, judges and elected or appointed government officials place their profession, friends, and profits before the rule of law.”
"The legal system in Canada has let down its users, the communities it serves, and its own values of fairness and equality. So many people now experience the courts or lawyers or the law as a club that excludes them, a tight clique that always looks down on them as “outsiders”, and will never see them as equals or peers."
Why do these officials do what they do - The short answer is that only people who try to hide their actions are those who know their actions are wrong or shameful. In this case the Crown does not want the Public to know."
"My hypothesis is that people were more willing to accept the notion 35 years ago that courthouses were places where justice was done. Today, people are more likely to look at them as places where injustice will be done" - Canadian Constitution Foundation.