The CJC ordered Justice Charles Chang to seek coaching from a senior judge
A Canadian Judicial Council review panel declined to remove an Ontario Superior Court of Justice judge from office after he was accused of being verbally abusive during a family law hearing but said the judge’s conduct was not “trivial” and would be penalized.
Announcing its decision last week, the CJC panel said it would “take an action of a private nature” against Justice Charles Chang and ordered the judge to receive coaching from a senior judge.
“Justice Chang is at the beginning of his judicial career and the council cannot simply hope that this will not happen again if Justice Chang faces yet another urgent matter with similar challenges,” the panel said in its decision. Chang was appointed to the bench in 2022.
The CJC review panel comprised Chief Justice Kenneth Nielsen of the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta, Justice Johanna Price of the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta, and Julia Pavlenko, a member of the public.
Filed with the CJC in 2023, the complaint against Chang alleged the judge was verbally abusive and intimidating during an urgent family law motion hearing. A screening officer with the CJC agreed Chang’s behaviour during the hearing was concerning, noting the judge frequently interrupted counsel and raised his voice “as if he was asserting the power of his position over those in a subordinate position to him.”
The screening officer also noted that Chang repeatedly expressed his frustration with how the hearing was a “he said/she said” scenario that involved little to no evidence to support the parties’ assertions.
Chang’s counsel told the CJC that the judge’s conduct should be considered in light of several circumstances. These include the fact that Chang was distressed after being informed that the courthouse he worked in was contaminated and would be closed indefinitely and how his conduct represented a direct and colloquial way of “dealing with an application that he considered to have been poorly prepared and ill-considered,” according to the CJC decision.
Chang argued that “parties less familiar with the day-to-day ‘cut and thrust’ of a judicial colloquy might interpret his ‘firmness’ as crossing the line into actual disrespect,” the decision said. The decision noted that Chang apologized to the complainant for his words and tone during the hearing and sought advice from a retired judge.
A member of the CJC who reviewed the complaint disagreed with Chang’s reasoning, opining that while the courthouse closing created uncertainty, judges must be able to “put aside the frustrations of the day” to do their jobs. The reviewing member also said that while family law matters can be stressful, this circumstance is not so rare or unique that a judge should not be able to handle it.
While listening to an audio recording of the hearing, the reviewing member additionally concluded that Chang was “impatient and that his tone was inappropriate, abusive and intimidating at times” and that “his interventions did not preserve the honour and dignity of both the individual proceedings and the administration of justice more generally.”
In May, Chief Justice Geoffrey Morawetz wrote a letter to the CJC describing Chang as a hard-working judge who was well-liked and respected by his colleagues.
However, the CJC’s review panel agreed with the reviewing member’s conclusions. While removing Chang from office would not be justified, the panel said the judge would be penalized.
Chang did not respond to a request for comment.
