Court upholds decision to strike down Nova Scotia judge’s civil suit

Dismissal of Nova Scotia Judge’s Appeal Against Judicial Council Decision Upheld

An appeal by a Nova Scotia provincial court judge against a judicial council decision to strike down her civil case against another judge and the province has been dismissed, according to a recent decision issued by Justice Christa Brothers of the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia.

In the decision issued last week, Justice Brothers stated that she could not support a finding of judicial misconduct in Chief Justice Michael Wood’s decision as chair of the Judicial Council of Nova Scotia.

The civil action brought by Judge Rickcola Brinton against then Chief Judge Pam Williams and the provincial attorney general regarding the provincial court’s vaccination policy for judges presiding over in-person cases during the COVID-19 pandemic was struck down by Chief Justice Wood in October.

Judge Brinton objected to the policy introduced by Chief Judge Williams, which mandated that only fully vaccinated judges could preside in the province’s courtrooms. She argued that the requirement to disclose her vaccination status violated her Charter rights.

The court found that Judge Brinton lacked standing to challenge the decision to dismiss her complaint and upheld the procedural fairness of the dismissal process. Justice Brothers determined that the complaint did not meet the threshold for review by a disciplinary committee.

Judge Brinton contended that the policy implemented by Chief Judge Williams was procedurally unfair and unreasonable. However, the court ruled that the policy was established as a health and safety measure, which was deemed reasonable under the circumstances, citing similar decisions in other provincial jurisdictions.

Justice Brothers clarified that her judgment was not a judicial review of the vaccine mandate, despite Judge Brinton’s arguments seemingly aimed in that direction. She stated, “The applicant conflates the misconduct decision with the decision by Chief Judge Williams to enact a vaccination policy. This policy or the decision to put one in place has never been the subject of a judicial review and is not before me.”

In her decision, Justice Brothers affirmed that the complaint screening process adhered to procedural fairness, noting that Judge Brinton had already presented her evidence and arguments. The court also rejected claims that a Doré analysis, a legal framework used to assess Charter rights, was required, as the case did not involve an infringement of Charter rights.

Ultimately, the court concluded that the chair of the judicial council acted reasonably in dismissing the complaint, as the allegations did not constitute judicial misconduct. The decision emphasized, “Errors in judicial decision-making — without more — do not amount to judicial misconduct.”