Parliament to check the power of the Executive and Judiciary

Request for the Executive to self-regulate... Just like the Judiciary, they can't do it.

“A body of men holding themselves accountable to nobody, ought not to be trusted by anybody.”
The Rights of Man (1791) by Thomas Paine

Parliament to check the power of the Executive and Judiciary

To: Prime Minister | Premier Ministre <pm@pm.gc.ca>
Wed, Mar 26, 2025 at 1:17 PM

I am forwarding this letter which was written to every member of the House of Commons in support of a non-confidence motion in the Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. Now that Justin Trudeau has stepped down and you have replaced him as leader of the Liberal Party and assumed the role of Prime Minister this duty becomes yours in order to protect Canadians and ensure that the constitutional imperative of peace, order and good government is maintained. The conduct alleged cannot be justified in a free and democratic State which is why there has been no argument presented by the Attorney General’s Office to defend their conduct.

I have presented the additional evidence before the BC Ombudsperson’s Office that the BC Law Society is protecting lawyers committing extortion and that the allegation was known to Minister of Justice David Lametti who made false and misleading statements to avoid doing his duty and improperly protecting lawyers and judges abusing Canadians. In addition the office of the PMO forwarded those details on to your current Chief of Staff Marco Mendocino who never responded. The evidence was presented before the court with a request for a writ of mandamus on the Minister of Justice with a decision due on Feb 14, 2022 when the judge failed to do her duty to even show up at the court house and the Emergencies Act was enforced. I do not know if you were privy to this information although it appears that you were in communication at the time with Mendocino, Lametti and Trudeau according to the evidence presented at POEC. In light of this evidence the legal opinion presented by the Attorney General’s Office should be made public and you have the authority and duty to do that.

The evidence has also been presented before the Special Joint Committee into the Declaration of an Emergency and before the Federal Court of Appeal from the decision of Justice Mosely which stated that the conduct of the Executive was unreasonable, illegal and unconstitutional. The further evidence indicates that the Minister of Justice’s conduct was not in good faith and was an abuse of the public trust, malfeasance in office.

This is an election issue. Given the evidence can the Public trust your administration to do it’s duty? The conduct of using the legal system to intimidate your political opponents using fear and extortion to silence dissent is reprehensible in a purported democracy.

Oh. Canada, I stand on guard for thee.

Ministerial Responsibility in Parliament by Government.pdf
Binder-A-75-24-Complete.pdf Intervention at the Federal Court of Appeal on Prorogation which includes Emergencies Act evidence
EvidenceForParliament.pdf the evidence presented to MP’s

I made a formal Request for the Justice and Human Rights Committee to undertake a Study on the conduct and compliance of the Canadian Judicial Council. That would actually start the process of rebuilding trust, but I received no response.

Sat, May 24, 2025 To: Justice and Human Rights <just@parl.gc.ca>, sean.fraser@parl.gc.ca, larry.brock@parl.gc.ca, mark.carney@parl.gc.ca

Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights
House of Commons Ottawa, ON K1A 0A6 Canada

Dear Chair and Members of the Committee,

I am writing to respectfully request that the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights initiate a formal study into the statutory conduct and accountability of the Canadian Judicial Council (CJC), with particular focus on:

Whether the CJC is administering its duties under the Judges Act in a manner consistent with the law and the Constitution; Whether its complaint screening and dismissal processes comply with procedural fairness and public transparency;

Whether its operations frustrate access to remedy under section 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; And whether Parliament must act to correct a failure of delegated authority.

The Core Problem: Delegated Authority Without Accountability

The CJC is a statutory body created and empowered by Parliament, under Part II of the Judges Act. It exercises discretionary authority over the review of federally appointed judges.

However, the Council: Dismisses complaints without reasons or investigation; Conducts screening in secret, by other judges, contrary to natural justice;

Provides no formal right of review, appeal, or remedy for complainants; Refuses to engage even when credible Charter violations are documented.

This is not judicial independence. It is a case of a delegated authority operating outside the bounds of transparent, lawful administration — with no institutional accountability.

Why This Falls Within the Committee’s Mandate.
The Standing Committee is entrusted with oversight of: The federal administration of justice;

The Judges Act, including how federally appointed judges are regulated;

The implementation and enforceability of Charter rights, including section 24(1) (the right to a just remedy). Where Parliament delegates authority to a body like the CJC, but that body fails in its duty, Parliament retains not just the power, but the responsibility to review, correct, or revoke that delegation.

My Submission

I have submitted detailed documentation to Parliament, including: A summary of personal experience with the CJC’s refusal to investigate a documented judicial rights violation; A constitutional analysis of the denial of remedy and the consequences for public trust; A legislative reform proposal, including a public-facing Grand Jury model for judicial accountability.

What I Am Requesting

That the Committee open a study to:

1. Investigate whether the Canadian Judicial Council is in compliance with the Judges Act and its own procedural rules;

2. Assess whether current practices violate Charter principles — particularly s. 24(1) and s. 15(1);

3. Examine the lack of transparency and public oversight in judicial complaint dismissals;

4. Hear evidence from members of the public who have attempted to use the CJC process;

5. Consider potential legislative or structural reform, including the creation of an independent public oversight mechanism for judicial conduct.

Why This Matters

The Charter is meaningless if those tasked with upholding it can operate outside scrutiny. The right to remedy under s. 24(1), especially where judicial misconduct is alleged cannot be extinguished by silence, secrecy, or procedural filters.

Parliament has both the power and the duty to act when its delegated authorities are failing the public.

I would be honoured to appear before the Committee or provide additional documentation upon request. Thank you for your consideration.

Respectfully submitted,

No Response. No Good Faith. Denial of a response when you have no argument that can be justified in a free and democratic State. In a democracy the citizens have the right and the duty to create a system of government that best suites their needs. Government exists to serve the people, not the other way around. Reform is required in order to restore trust. There are no rights without a remedy.

Thomas Paine also said,
“I prefer peace. But if trouble must come, let it come in my time, so my children may live in peace.”

“When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men [or women] they invent a legal system to authorize it and a moral code to justify it”
Frederick Bastiet