Canadian Judicial Council on Judges' Use of Social Media

Earlier this month, the Canadian Judicial Council issued Guidelines on the Use of Social Media by Federally Appointed Judges.

From the press release:

"The purpose of the Guidelines is to provide additional guidance about the safe and appropriate use of social media by judges. The Guidelines acknowledge that while there are risks associated with the use of social media by judges, there are also potential benefits such as opportunities to: connect with the broader judicial community; facilitate public education about the judicial role and the legal system; maintain personal connections with friends and family, which is an important component of judicial wellness; and educate judges on a technology that may arise in cases before them. The Guidelines also recognize that improper use of social media can undermine public confidence in the judiciary as well as the principles that define the judicial role, namely: independence, integrity, respect, diligence, competence, equality, and impartiality."

The CJC's  role is to ensure the proper conduct of federally appointed judges and to improve the quality of judicial services, court management and technology. It is chaired by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada.

Guidelines for the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Canadian Courts

The Canadian Judicial Council (CJC) has released Guidelines for the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Canadian Courts:

 

"These Guidelines aim to provide Canadian judges with a principled framework for understanding the extent to which AI tools can be used appropriately to support or enhance the judicial role. The objective is twofold: to establish a rationale for a consistent approach to the utilization of AI in Canadian courts and to shed light on both the opportunities and risks inherent in AI’s potential incursion into court administration and judicial decision-making. We hope this guidance can also serve as the basis for a more standardized approach to judicial education across all jurisdictions in order to foster continued competence as these systems evolve (...)"

"Formulating AI guidelines at this juncture necessitates a delicate balance between  embracing innovation and acknowledging that many of the ramifications of this potent technology remain uncharted. Established values and fundamental principles must not be discarded solely due to the pressures of modernization. At the same time, AI shows promise in providing innovative solutions to longstanding practical challenges within the justice system."

"Consequently, this modest endeavour proposes to adhere to three guiding principles: (1) Awareness and Education, (2) Caution and (3) Leadership."

The CJC's  role is to ensure the proper conduct of federally appointed judges and to improve the quality of judicial services, court management and technology. It is chaired by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada.

Library of Parliament Legislative Summary of Bill to Amend Judges Act

The Library of Parliament has published its legislative summary of Bill C-9, An Act to amend the Judges Act:

"By replacing the existing complaints process regarding alleged misconduct with a new system, Bill C-9 changes how complaints against federally appointed judges are handled. The existing process was established in 1971 under the Judges Act, which defines the criteria for removing a judge from office and prescribes certain other requirements; procedural elements of the complaints process are largely set out in Canadian Judicial Council (CJC) policy documents and by laws."

"The CJC is a federal body created under the Judges Act and empowered to investigate public complaints and referrals from the Minister of Justice of Canada or a provincial/territorial attorney general about the conduct of federally appointed judges. It does not review judges’ decisions. After conducting an inquiry, the CJC may make recommendations to the minister, including the recommendation to remove a judge from office. The CJC’s judicial conduct oversight role is part of its general mandate to help the judicial system remain efficient, uniform and accountable. Its 41 members include all chief justices and associate chief justices and certain senior judges from federal and provincial/territorial superior courts."

It is possible to follow the progress of the bill through both Chambers of the Canadian Parliament on the LEGISinfo website.

Handbooks for Self-Represented Litigants

The Canadian Judicial Council (CJC) has published three (3) handbooks for self-represented litigants who are involved in civil, criminal or family litigation procedures.

"The handbooks make it simple for self-represented litigants to access information for each province and territory in both official languages on how to prepare for a hearing, the applicable rules and law, where to find free or lower cost legal help and related resource agencies, among many other things."

"It is important to note that while these handbooks cannot anticipate all of the possible situations that may arise, they provide a starting point that will assist and guide litigants. The Handbooks do not provide legal advice and are not a substitute for the advice that a lawyer may provide. The Handbooks provide general information only."

Each Handbook also has a Resources section, relevant to each Canadian jurisdiction, providing information as to how to obtain electronic access to statutes, regulations, and forms.

The CJC's  role is to ensure the proper conduct of federally appointed judges and to improve the quality of judicial services, court management and technology.

It is chaired by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada.

Canadian Judicial Council Guidelines for Management of Requests for Bulk Access to Court Information by Commercial Entities

The Canadian Judicial Council (CJC) has published new guidelines for the Management of Requests for Bulk Access to Court Information by Commercial Entities:

"Courts across Canada are grappling with requests by commercial entities for bulk access to Court Information to aggregate, analyze, repackage, commercialize and distribute it, particularly court decisions, orders, and other documents typically found in Court Records."

"This demand has traditionally been driven by publishers of research systems and precedent databases. Increasingly, however, requests are coming from a more diverse range of organizations, some motivated by intent to apply advanced analytics or machine learning algorithms to predict individual and collective decision-making outcomes based on features such as judges or counsel names, and fact patterns."

(...)

"While access to Court Information must be a core tenet underpinning ‘open justice’, it is also important to balance this by mitigating the risk that inadvertent release of private or sensitive information residing in court files does not cause harm to vulnerable people, undue distress or a risk of identity theft arising from malicious use."

(...)

"The objective of this report is to propose a common approach and guidelines to assist Canadian courts responding to requests for bulk access to Court Information. The proposed mechanisms are aimed at recalibrating the core principles of ‘access’ and ‘open courts’ in the context of digital information and online service delivery. Access issues were much easier to navigate at a time when court information was held in paper files and the need for physical attendance at a courthouse effectively meant that information was practically obscured and thereby protected from broad, inappropriate use. It is now more challenging to balance ‘access’ principles with other important principles including preserving integrity, safeguarding the administration of justice, protecting the reputation and integrity of the court and the judiciary, and mitigating risks associated with misuse of private or sensitive information."

"The Framework specifically identified some potential risks associated with an overly cavalier approach to the ‘open courts’ principle in an era where Court Information is stored in electronic rather than paper format, where sensitive Judicial Information and private data is intermingled with other information on court files and databases and when the effective protections afforded by practical obscurity are no longer present."

"A more recent, emerging consideration, many will see as a risk, is the trend towards application of predictive analytics and artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms to Court Information. While there are some potential benefits from these developments, there are also some risks associated with incorrect predictions and the ramifications of reliance upon the output from biased or poorly designed machine learning models. The key question here though is whether it is the role of the judiciary to make determinations about the quality or effectiveness of such services and whether courts are in any event resourced to wade into such territory."

The CJC's  role is to ensure the proper conduct of federally appointed judges. This includes the power to investigate the conduct - and not the decisions - of federally appointed judges when a complaint is made against one of them.

The Council also makes recommendations on issues relating to court management and technology.

It is chaired by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada.

Federal Bill on Sexual Assault Training for Judges

The Canadian government has introduced Bill C-5 that would require federally-appointed judges to undergo sensitivity training to learn about myths and stereotypes in sexual assault cases.

If passed, the legislation would also require the Canadian Judicial Council, which has authority over the work of federally-appointed judges and is chaired by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, to set up and report on the training program.

It would also amend the Criminal Code to make sure judges provide written reasons when they rule on sexual assault cases.

It is possible to follow the progress of the bill on the LEGISinfo website.

Justice Canada has provided some background on the issue.

An earlier proposal from the last session of Parliament, known as Bill C-337, died in the Senate before the 2019 federal elections.

News coverage:

• Aiming for all-party support, Liberals table bill on judges' sexual assault training first introduced by Rona Ambrose (National Post, February 4, 2020)
• Government introduces ‘necessary’ legislation on sexual assault training for judges (iPolitics, February 4, 2020)
• Liberals table legislation ‘consistent’ with Rona Ambrose’s bill requiring sexual-assault education for judges (Globe and Mail, February 4, 2020)
• Proposed bill on sexual assault awareness training for judges 'above politics,' Ambrose says (CBC, February 4, 2020)

New Website for Canadian Judicial Council

The Canadian Judicial Council has a new website.

Its role is to ensure the proper conduct of federally appointed judges. This includes the power to investigate the conduct - and not the decisions - of federally appointed judges when a complaint is made against one of them.

The Council can make recommendations for certain actions, including the removal of a judge.

It is chaired by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada.

Canadian Judicial Council Launches Review of Ethical Principles for Judges

Patricia Hughes, the former Executive Director of the Law Commission of Ontario, published an article yesterday on Slaw.ca on the proposed revision by the Canadian Judicial Council of its ethical guidelines for federally-appointed judges in Canada:

"It has been 20 years since the current Principles have been in force; the CJC describes them as 'relatively unchanged since [then]'. As the CJC recognizes, much else has changed since 1998, including expectations about judges’ behaviour, use of technology and social issues. This has affected the nature of appointments, the background of appointees and the nature of contributions potential judicial candidates bring to the judicial process."

As part of its mandate, the Council reviews complaints or allegations against such judges.

It is chaired by the Chief Justice of Canada, currently the Right Honourable Richard Wagner.

As part of the revision process, the Council has issued a Background Paper as well as an online survey.

Canadian Judicial Council Proposals for Reform to the Judicial Discipline Process

Earlier this week, the Canadian Judicial Council (CJC) released a document outlining Proposals for Reform to the Judicial Discipline Process for Federally-appointed Judges.

The CJC was created in 1971. Its role is to improve the quality of judicial service in all superior courts in Canada. It is composed of the chief justices and associate chief justices of Canada's superior courts. The Council is chaired by the Chief Justice of Canada.

One of its essential functions is to examine misconduct allegations against federally-appointed judges.

One of the highlights is a proposal to allow the CJC to impose sanctions and remedial measures against a judge found to be at fault. At the moment, the CJC can only recommend removal from the bench as punishment.

Media coverage includes:

• Canadian Judicial Council wants greater range of disciplinary options for judges (CBC News, October 5, 2016)
• Canadian Judicial Council puts forward recommendations for discipline process (CTV News Calgary, October 5, 2016)
• CJC releases proposals for judicial discipline reform (Canadian Lawyer Legal Feeds blog, October 6, 2016)

Canadian Bar Association Legal Futures Round-Up: September 19, 2016

CBA National, the magazine of the Canadian Bar Association, publishes a regular feature entitled Legal Futures roundup that tracks "noteworthy developments, opinions and news in the legal futures space as a means of furthering discussion about our changing legal marketplace."

The most recent instalment includes items on, among other things, legislative reform of the legal services industry in England and Wales, Norton Rose’s acquisition of Bull Housser in Vancouver, whether lawyers ought to have a monopoly on delivering legal services, access to justice in rural communities, Justice Robin Camp’s disciplinary hearing in front of the Canadian Judicial Council over remarks he made during a sexual assault trial in Alberta, a survey about legal services outsourcing, the Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) clauses of the Trans Pacific Partnership, and more.

Canadian Judicial Council 2012-2013 Annual Report

The Canadian Judicial Council (CJC) has published its annual report for 2012-2013.

The CJC was created in 1971. Its role is to improve the quality of judicial service in all superior courts in Canada. It is composed of the chief justices and associate chief justices of Canada's superior courts. The Council is chaired by The Right Honourable Beverley McLachlin, Chief Justice of Canada.

One of its essential functions is to examine complaints concerning the acts of federally-appointed judges.

Among the highlights of the report:

• For fiscal year 2012-2013 (reporting as of 21 March 2013) a total of 138 new complaint files were opened. The total number of complaint files closed for the same period was 131. As of 21 March 2013, there were 44 complaint files under review at various stages of the complaint process.The report summarizes 9 of the complaints.
• As of 21 March 2013, 233 letters were sent to individuals who were seeking clarity on Council’s mandate or who were expressing dissatisfaction with a judge’s decisions or who were complaining about the conduct of an official not within Council’s jurisdiction (ie. provincial judge, master, lawyer). This is an increase from 163 such letters in 2011-12; 114 such letters in 2010-11 and 83 such letters in 2009-10.

New Website for Canadian Judicial Council

The Canadian Judicial Council recently launched a new website.

There are explanations on how the Canadian judiciary works, publications on judicial ethics, as well as summaries of how complaints against federally appointed judges have been handled in the past.

The Council is a federal body created under the Judges Act  with the mandate to promote efficiency, uniformity, and accountability in the superior courts of Canada. The Council is also mandated to review any complaint or allegation against a superior court judge. 

It is chaired by the Chief Justice of Canada, the Right Honourable Beverley McLachlin.  There are 38 other Council members, who are the chief justices and associate chief justices of Canada’s superior courts, the senior judges of the territorial courts, and the Chief Justice of the Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada.

Canadian Judges Trying to Figure Out What To Do About Twitter in the Courtroom

The most recent issue of The Lawyers Weekly reports that Canadian judges are trying to figure out what to do about the use of social media such as Twitter in the courtroom:

"In behind-the-scenes debates, Canada’s judges are trying to devise a consistent and principled approach to media tweeting and other social media use within their courtrooms (...)"

"The judiciary’s internal debate about tweeting came to light after Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin warned, in a Jan. 31 speech to Carleton University, that live dissemination of court proceedings by Twitter and other social media can pose a risk to fair, accurate and complete court coverage 'and its correlative - continued public confidence in the judicial system'. "

"Despite this risk, so far few Canadian courts have devised guiding principles - let alone specific rules -for in-court social media use by journalists and other spectators."

"The result has been that individual judges have had to contend on their own with the growing number of media requests to 'tweet' live from the courtroom, especially in high-profile trials."

"The Canadian Judicial Council (CJC), which oversees federal judges, has been wrestling for more than a year with this thorny issue, but has yet to produce guidelines or best practices to help courts across the country craft their own policies."

Judges and Social Networking Sites

There is a lot of attention paid to the impact of jurors, reporters and members of the public using social networking technologies in the courtroom.

There is not as much material on the ethics of judges using the same tools such as Facebook or Twitter.

Michael Crowell of the School of Government at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill has written a paper on Judicial Ethics and Social Networking Sites that looks at the issue:

"For some time now state bar regulatory agencies have been addressing the effect of electronic communication on traditional ethical rules for lawyers ― the extent to which law firm websites constitute advertising, whether e-mail inquiries establish an attorney/client relationship, and so on. Likewise, judges hearing cases have faced new legal issues involving electronic discovery and searches of computers. Judges are becoming familiar, too, with problems of jurors communicating with the outside world and conducting their own research via their Blackberries, smart phones and other devices."

"Compared to the information available on those other electronic communication issues, there is relatively little reference material for judges concerning their own social networking and the Code of Judicial Conduct. The purpose of this paper is to share some information addressing questions of judges’ personal use of social networks."

The paper deals with the situation in the United States.

Participation in social networks by judges in the U.S. has reached a level that prompted the Florida judicial ethics committee to issue an edict in 2009 that judges and lawyers should not be Facebook 'friends,' to avoid appearance of conflict in the event they end up in the same courtroom. Other US state committees on judicial ethics have also taken positions warning judges about the perils of networking.

The Canadian Judicial Council has not yet drafted rules for Canadian judges but it appears to be monitoring the situation south of the border. It has produced a number of recent publications on IT security but no definite guidelines about judges and social networks seem to exist at the moment.

The Council is made up of 39 members and is chaired by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, the Right Honourable Beverley McLachlin.

Council membership consists of the chief justices, associate chief justices, and some senior judges from provincial and federal superior courts across the country.

The federal Parliament created the Council in 1971 to promote efficiency, uniformity, and accountability, and to improve the quality of judicial service in all superior courts of Canada.

Should Judges Join Facebook?

In yesterday's Montreal Gazette, an article about whether Canadian judges should be on the popular social networking site Facebook:

"Amid escalating debate in the U.S. about judicial antics online, the Canadian Judicial Council has turned its attention to whether there should be some ground rules for judges who want to join Facebook and other social networking sites (...)"

"While there are no known cases of Canadian judges on Facebook, participation in the U.S. has reached a level that prompted the Florida judicial ethics committee to issue an edict last month that judges and lawyers should not be Facebook 'friends,' to avoid appearance of conflict in the event they end up in the same courtroom (...)"

"There also has been a handful of publicized cases of judges landing in hot water for their behaviour online, most recently the resignation this month of Georgia judge Ernest Woods following revelations of his Facebook conversations with a woman who was a defendant in a case before his court, which included a promise to lend her money."

"In New York, a judge accused of being a Facebook addict was transferred in October to another jurisdiction. News reports, quoting courthouse insiders, said he was constantly updating his status and even snapped and posted a photo of his crowded courtroom in session."

The Canadian Judicial Council has not yet drafted rules for Canadian judges but is monitoring the situation south of the border.

The Council is made up of 39 members and is chaired by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, the Right Honourable Beverley McLachlin.

Council membership consists of the chief justices, associate chief justices, and some senior judges from provincial and federal superior courts across the country.

The federal Parliament created the Council in 1971 to promote efficiency, uniformity, and accountability, and to improve the quality of judicial service in all superior courts of Canada.

Annual Report of the Canadian Judicial Council

The most recent issue of the Weekly Checklist of Government of Canada publications includes the 2008-2009 annual report of the Canadian Judicial Council.

The Canadian Judicial Council is made up of 39 members and is chaired by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, the Right Honourable Beverley McLachlin.

Council membership consists of the chief justices, associate chief justices, and some senior judges from provincial and federal superior courts across the country.

The federal Parliament created the Council in 1971 to promote efficiency, uniformity, and accountability, and to improve the quality of judicial service in all superior courts of Canada.

The Weekly Checklist includes a listing of book and serial titles which have been released during the previous week by the Parliament of Canada, federal departments, and Statistics Canada.

Canadian Judicial Council Report on Improving Access to Justice

The Canadian Judicial Council has released a new report entitled Access to Justice: Report on Selected Reform Initiatives in Canada.

According to the Council press release:

"The report, which focuses on the civil and family justice systems, identifies five areas in which significant reforms aimed at addressing the cost of litigation have been undertaken in recent years in various Canadian jurisdictions:"

• "Proportionality: Targeting proportionality between on the one hand the scale of court proceedings and on the other hand the value of the claim, public importance of the issues and complexity of the case;
• Experts: Streamlining the use of experts and limiting their number;
• Point of Entry: Assisting litigants without counsel to obtain information and referrals quickly and effectively on first contact with the judicial system;
• Discovery: Containing the scope of discovery procedures; and
• Caseflow management: Expediting the flow of cases through the courts."

"This report (...) is based on records developed at its request for the new Inventory of Reforms created by the Canadian Forum on Civil Justice ... The report identifies 60 reforms in the five noted areas covered, ranging from pilot projects to changes that have already become permanent. "

The Canadian Judicial Council is made up of 39 members and is chaired by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, the Right Honourable Beverley McLachlin.

Council membership consists of the chief justices, associate chief justices, and some senior judges from provincial and federal superior courts across the country.

The federal Parliament created the Council in 1971 to promote efficiency, uniformity, and accountability, and to improve the quality of judicial service in all superior courts of Canada. The Council has authority over the work of more than 1,070 federally appointed judges.

Canadian Judicial Council Publishes National Model Practice Direction for the Use of Technology in Civil Litigation

Last week, the Canadian Judicial Council released its National Model Practice Direction for the Use of Technology in Civil Litigation:

"The Practice Direction provides much-needed guidance to trial judges and lawyers with respect to the best practices for exchanging productions in electronic form, as well as handling paperless trials. Counsel will be encouraged to use a format of exchange which reduces the cost of litigation and improves access to justice."

"The Practice Direction is accompanied by a Generic Protocol which can be adapted as a checklist and form of agreement between parties to establish a meaningful and simplified exchange of evidence. By using a Protocol, parties can avoid expensive misunderstandings and incompatibility, without having to buy the same litigation support software."

"In July 2006, the Supreme Court of British Columbia issued a Practice Direction on the use of technology and in September 2007, the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench issued Practice Note 14, both of which are consistent with the standard published by Council. It is hoped that Chief Justices of other trial courts will consider implementing their own Practice Directions based on the National Model."

The Canadian Judicial Council is made up of 39 members and is chaired by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, the Right Honourable Beverley McLachlin.

Council membership consists of the chief justices, associate chief justices, and some senior judges from provincial and federal superior courts across the country.

The federal Parliament created the Council in 1971 to promote efficiency, uniformity, and accountability, and to improve the quality of judicial service in all superior courts of Canada. The Council has authority over the work of more than 1,070 federally appointed judges.

Canadian Judicial Council Inquiry Recommends Sacking Toronto Judge

A panel of inquiry of the Canadian Judicial Council has concluded that there are grounds for dismissing the Honourable Theodore Matlow, of the Superior Court of Justice of Ontario.

Under The Judges Act, R.S.C., c. J-1, the Canadian Judicial Council can investigate complaints made against federally appointed judges of the superior courts of Canada.

The panel found that his personal conduct in connection with a neighbourhood dispute made him unfit for office:

"The Inquiry Committee notes Justice Matlow's expressions of regret but concludes that those expressions of regret, because of their limited nature, do not cause the Inquiry Committee to vary its characterization of Justice Matlow's conduct or its conclusions regarding how that conduct has engaged paragraphs (b) through (d) of subsection 65(2) of the Judges Act."

"On consideration of:

• the breadth and extent of Justice Matlow's failure to conform to generally accepted ethical standards for judges, in the course of the conduct investigated;
• the several conclusions that Justice Matlow has failed in the due execution of the office of judge, has been guilty of misconduct and has placed himself in a position incompatible with the due execution of the office of judge;
• Justice Matlow’s currently expressed views as to the propriety of his conduct at the time, and his current views as to conduct appropriate for a judge who becomes concerned about what he or she perceives as misconduct in public office, indicate little or no prospect that Justice Matlow would conduct himself differently in the future; and
• Justice Matlow’s limited expressions of regret,"
  

"the Inquiry Committee concludes that Justice Matlow's conduct is so manifestly and totally contrary to the impartiality, integrity and independence of the judiciary that the confidence of individuals appearing before the judge, or of the public in its justice system, have been undermined, rendering the judge incapable of performing the duties of his judicial office. Accordingly, the Inquiry Committee expresses the view that a recommendation for removal of Justice Matlow from office is warranted."

The report now goes to the full council, which has to determine whether to recommend to the federal justice minister that Matlow be removed from the bench.

Matlow had participated in lobbying efforts against a proposed condominium complex near his home in the Toronto neighbourhood of Forest Hill. During the dispute, Matlow accused Toronto city officials of misconduct and is said to have tried to influence media coverage.

He did not later recuse himself from hearing a case concerning a controversial municipal plan to create a dedicated right-of-way for light rail transit along St.Clair, a major artery in Central Toronto. That led city lawyers to lodge a complaint against the judge.

In a May 30, 2008 Toronto Star article entitled Crusading judge unfit for office, probe finds, Matlow's lawyer Paul Cavalluzzo is quoted as saying that the panel took a "very antiquated, almost monastic view" of how judges are expected to behave.

But other legal observers have praised the Council.

In the same Toronto Star article, Osgoode Hall Law School professor Allan Hutchinson said that the council "is finally taking its regulatory role seriously and sending out a message that judicial independence does not mean that judges can do whatever they wish."

The Canadian Judicial Council is chaired by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, the Right Honourable Beverley McLachlin. Council membership consists of the chief justices, associate chief justices, and some senior judges from provincial and federal superior courts across the country.

New Canadian Judicial Council Report on Improving Court Administration

The Canadian Judicial Council has published a new report entitled Administering Justice for the Public on how to improve the efficiency of judicial administration in Canada:

"In 2003, the Canadian Judicial Council (CJC) decided to examine how courts could best advance both goals of court administration. Could Courts, in other words, be run in a way that will enhance their effectiveness, efficiency, and accountability on the one hand, while enhancing impartial and independent decision-making on the other? The CJC concluded that these twin goals can best be advanced by moving from an Executive-led model of Court Administration to a model of limited autonomy for self-governing Courts (which will be called the 'judicial responsibility' model) (...)"

"Canadian Courts are already moving in the direction of more judicial responsibility. Since 2002, the Canadian federal Courts have been administered by an independent government agency. In Ontario, since the early 1990s, the Chief Justice of the Ontario Court of Justice and the Attorney General have operated under a Memorandum of Understanding which gives the Chief Justice responsibility over a portion of the Court’s budget. Similar arrangements exist in different courts in Quebec, British Columbia and Alberta. In Quebec, the Court of Appeal of Québec and the Court of Québec each have been delegated by the Government significant autonomy in administrative decision-making. In other provinces, such as Manitoba and Newfoundland & Labrador, Court Management Councils comprised of judges and Government officials consult on shared concerns relating to Court administration".

"In light of the Canadian experience and that of other peer jurisdictions, the judicial responsibility model represents the best alternative for improving the quality and delivery of judicial services in Canadian Courts, and enhancing public trust and confidence in the judicial system, while preserving judicial impartiality and independence".

The CJC was created in 1971. Its role is to improve the quality of judicial service in all superior courts in Canada. It is composed of the chief justices and associate chief justices of Canada's superior courts. The Council is chaired by The Right Honourable Beverley McLachlin, Chief Justice of Canada.