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

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.

In a decision issued last week, Justice Christa Brothers of the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia said 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.

In October, Wood struck down the civil action 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.

Brinton was upset by policies Williams introduced during the pandemic allowing only fully vaccinated judges to preside in the province's courtrooms. Brinton had argued that requiring her to disclose her vaccination status was a violation of her Charter rights.

The court found that Brinton lacked standing to challenge the decision to dismiss her complaint and upheld the procedural fairness of the dismissal process.

Brothers determined that the complaint did not meet the threshold for review by a disciplinary committee.

Brinton had argued that the policy, implemented by Williams, was procedurally unfair and unreasonable.

The ruling said Williams had established the policy as a health and safety measure, which the court deemed reasonable under the circumstances, citing similar decisions in other provincial jurisdictions.

Brothers said her judgment was not a judicial review of the vaccine mandate, although Brinton's arguments appeared to have been aimed that way.

"The applicant conflates the misconduct decision with the decision by Chief Judge Williams to enact a vaccination policy," her decision said.

"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, Brothers said the complaint screening process adhered to procedural fairness, noting that Brinton had already presented her evidence and arguments.

Additionally, the court 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.

The court concluded that the chair of the judicial council acted reasonably in dismissing the complaint, as the allegations did not constitute judicial misconduct. 

"Errors in judicial decision-making — without more — do not amount to judicial misconduct," the decision said.