|
Immunity - Judicial. Fiederer v. Canada (Attorney General)
In Fiederer v. Canada (Attorney General) (Fed CA, 2022) the Federal Court of Appeal considered the civil legal immunity of the Canadian Judicial Council (CJC):[9] In the decision under appeal, the Federal Court set out the correct legal principle that the CJC and its employees, acting in the scope of their duties, benefit from immunity from suit in tort or for extra-contractual liability, unless they act in bad faith when dealing with a complaint (Ernst v. Alberta Energy Regulator, 2017 SCC 1, [2017] 1 S.C.R. 3 at paras. 50-51, 115-120, 171; Taylor v. Canada (Attorney General), 2000 CanLII 17120 (FCA), [2000] 3 FC 298 at paras. 30-39 & 41; Sirros v. Moore, [1974] 3 All ER 776 (C.A) at p. 785; and Morier v. Rivard, 1985 CanLII 26 (SCC), [1985] 2 S.C.R. 716 at p. 737-45; Edwards v. Law Society of Upper Canada, 2001 SCC 80 at para. 6). Therefore, the Federal Court’s decision does not contain any error of law. . The Ontario Mission for the Deaf v. Buchan
In The Ontario Mission for the Deaf v. Buchan (Div Ct, 2021) the Divisional Court considers the judicial immunity of justices of the peace from human rights code proceedings:[23] In any event, Justices of the Peace benefit from judicial immunity, including in the context of applications before the Tribunal: see Justices of the Peace Act, RSO 1990, s.20; Persaud v. Ontario (Attorney General), 2008 CanLII 37215 (On. Sup. Ct.), at para. 46; and Belso v. York Region Police, 2009 HRTO 757, at para. 9. Any issues related to the conduct of Justices of the Peace can be raised on an appeal in the context of the prosecution or by way of a complaint to the Justices of the Peace Review Council. However, Justices of the Peace cannot be the subject of an application to the Tribunal under the Code for the manner in which they conducted a proceeding.
|
