To: All Members of Canadian Parliament
I am requesting that an inquiry be commenced into the serious misconduct of judge Myers of Ontario Superior Court. More particularly, I am requesting that an inquiry be commenced to determine whether judge Myers should be removed from office for any of the reasons set out in paragraphs 65(2)(b) to (d) of the Judge Act.
In my respectful opinion, Canada Appointed judge Myers fabricated facts and law, forged court document throughout the proceedings in Gao v. Ontario WSIB and the Ombudsman office was so manifestly and profoundly destructive of the concept of the impartiality, integrity, and independence of the judicial role that public confidence has been sufficiently undermined to render judge Myers incapable of executing his judicial office. It is, therefore, that judge Myers has become incapacitated or disabled from the due execution of the office of judge, within the meaning of subsection 65(2) of the Judges Act.
The judge Myers reflected an unsupportable view of legislation (he fabricated facts and law, forged court document and framed up plaintiff). Legislation was designed to protect both Impartiality of Justice and Procedures. When the judge Myers saw the case’s facts and evidences submitted to him, he fabricated facts and law, forged the court document, framed up plaintiff (me). The judge Myers did steal Rule 2.1for protecting crimes but he didn’t also comply with the Rule 2.1’s Procedures for concealing his Forgery. It was “very, very incursive legislation” which destroyed Canada Legislation and Law, protected crimes occurred at Ontario superior court, stopped from impartiality, integrity and independence of the judicial. Evidence: receipts signed; 2014 ONSC 4962; 2014 ONSC 6497.
Parliament created the Canadian Judicial Council, giving it power to investigate and rule on complaints about the conduct of federal appointed judges.
Judicial accountability: Judicial accountability ensure that is rendered according to the law. Judicial accountability measures are essential to protect the proper application of the Rule of Law, a cornerstone of Canada’s constitutional democracy.
Judicial independence does not give judges the right to do whatever they wish. Many measures exist to ensure that judges are held accountable, include:
* The absolute requirement that cases be decided in open court according to the law and the evidence;
* The duty to provide sufficient reasons for their decisions, which will be available in the public domain;
* The obligation to decide cases according to the evidence and the law;
* Accountability to the public interest for independent decision-making bases upon established and discernable principles of law, and
* The possibility of appeal of their decisions to a higher court.
Judges are independent but remain accountable for their actions:
* Court proceedings are open to the public;
* Journalists and citizens can judge for themselves whether justice has been done. They are free to debate and criticize a judge’ s decision….
The conduct of judges, inside and outside of their courtrooms, can also be investigated by federal or provincial judicial councils that have been given formal investigating powers to account for their behavior and impose measured of recommend sanctions to be taken by the proper authorities.
For all of these reasons judges are, and are seen to be, accountable for their adjudicative functions:
* They have sworn an oath to render justice according to law;
* Their impartiality and independence is constitutionally enshrined; * Their independence, impartiality and integrity are presumed as a matter of law; * They hear case, and render judgment in public; * Their decisions are subject to appeal; * Their reasons are published and may be openly criticized in the press, academic journals or other public discourse, and * Their conduct as judges, as distinct from their judgments, if found wanting, may be the subject of investigation and sanction by federal and provincial judicial councils.
Accountability provides a “check and balance” to satisfy the community that the trust respond in its judiciary is deserved and that respect for the administration of justice is well-founded. It ensures that the authority of judges, whether as individuals or as an institution, is not abused.
Such public accountability anchors public confidence in the independence and impartiality of Canada’s judiciary. Thus accountability acts as a safeguard to preserve judicial independence and provide judicial impartiality.
January 01, 2015