Digests

Decision Information

Decision Content

Taylor v. Canada ( Attorney General )

T-1412-96

Dubé J.

15/12/97

10 pp.

Judicial review of Canadian Human Rights Commission's decision lacked jurisdiction under Canadian Human Rights Act, s. 41(1)(c) to hear merits of case-Complaint concerning order of Judge of Ontario Court (General Division) requiring spectators to leave courtroom unless removed "kufi", allegedly "muslim religious headcovering"-Apparently Commission relying on common law principle judges of superior courts having absolute immunity protecting them from civil suits-Application dismissed-In Sirros v. Moore, [1974] 3 All E.R. 776 (C.A.) Denning L.J. stating ever since 1613, if not before, accepted in our law, that no action maintainable against judge for anything said or done by him in exercise of jurisdiction-Judge of superior court not liable for anything done by him while "acting as a judge" or "doing a judicial act" or "acting judicially" or "in the execution of his office" or "quatenus a judge"-Such expressions having much wider meaning than expression "acting within his jurisdiction"-Judge of superior court protected when he is acting in bona fide exercise of his office and under belief has jurisdiction, though may be mistaken in that belief and may not in truth have any jurisdiction-Judge should not have to turn pages of books with trembling fingers, asking "If I do this, shall I be liable in damages?"-Although judge could not be subjected to action in damages, applicant submitting judge may not violate Act with impunity-Judges Act, s. 65, Part II more to the point than Canadian Human Rights Act, s. 5-S. 65 providing Canadian Judicial Council may report conclusions to Minister of Justice where of opinion judge against whom complaint lodged guilty of misconduct-Council earlier holding rulings made by judges in independent discharge of judicial functions best left with appeal courts-Not ruling out possibility of dealing with matter, but merely deferring to Ontario Court of Appeal-Commission not erring in holding beyond its jurisdiction to deal with complaint about judge who enunciated, applied specific criteria to ensure proper decorum in his courtroom-Judges Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. J-1, s. 65 (as am. by R.S.C., 1985 (2nd Supp.), c. 27, s. 5)-Canadian Human Rights Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. H-6, ss. 5, 41(1)(c) (as am. by S.C. 1995, c. 44, s. 49).

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.