The complaint received by the Council included two grievances.webid-20150000
The complaint received by the Council included two grievances. The first was that the complainant stated that he did not receive an initial summons to appear for jury selection. He also stated that the court had the wrong address, and he received a call from the clerk of the court asking that he come to court the next day to explain why he had not appeared as per the summons.
The second issue is that while the complainant was in court, he alleged that the judge made a crude remark to another man who was there to explain why he had not appeared the day before. The complainant felt that this was completely inexcusable and showed the tone that the judge was going to adopt with everyone appearing before her. Additionally, the complainant perceived that the judge was condescending to people appearing before her, but less so to female respondents.
The Council explained that jury duty was and has always been an important responsibility in our society and an important part of the Canadian justice system, and for that reason, courts are vigilant in regards to attendance. The allegation of bias requires credible evidence and cannot rest on a mere allegation. The complainant was informed that any complaint related to summons to appear for jury selection and jury duty in general must be directed at the Attorney General of Ontario. He was also advised that complaints that are not directed at federally-appointed judges fall outside of Council’s mandate to review. The matter was closed.Back