This Act establishes a standalone statutory regime for handling complaints about provincial court judges and adjudicators in New Brunswick. It replaces the province’s prior Judicial Council arrangements and consolidates complaint rules that previously appeared in the Provincial Court Act and the Small Claims Act.
The law creates a multi-member complaints committee, a sequence of procedural stages (Registrar screening, judge review, review panel, inquiry panel) and an expanded set of non-monetary sanctions up to a recommendation for revocation. For administrators and court leaders, it standardizes responsibilities and reporting; for judges and adjudicators it creates a defined, expedited pathway for grievances and potential discipline.
At a Glance
What It Does
The Act prescribes a four-step process: an initial screening by the Registrar, a judge-led review, a review-panel stage, and—if required—an inquiry panel that holds a public hearing. It gives panels authority to investigate, impose non-monetary sanctions, suspend (with or without pay) and refer revocation recommendations to the Lieutenant-Governor in Council.
Who It Affects
The regime applies to provincially appointed court judges and adjudicators designated under the Judicature and Provincial Court Acts, the Registrar and court administrative staff, the Law Society’s appointees, and members of the public appointed to the complaints committee. Chief justices and court leaders gain explicit powers to initiate reviews without a formal complaint.
Why It Matters
The Act moves complaints handling into statute, narrows procedural uncertainty and sets deadlines and reporting duties that will change how quickly and publicly conduct matters are resolved. It also increases lay public representation on decision-makers and funnels certain removal decisions through a formal recommendation to the Lieutenant-Governor in Council.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
Any person may submit a written, signed complaint by mail or email about a provincial court judge or a statutory adjudicator alleging misconduct, neglect of duty, or incapacity; the complaint must include contact details and as many specifics as possible about time, place and events. The Registrar acts as the initial gatekeeper and is required to complete a preliminary review; the Registrar can ask for more information and may dismiss complaints that are frivolous, without merit, or unsupported by evidence.
If the Registrar keeps a matter alive, the chair of the complaints committee assigns the file to a judge on the committee. That judge provides the subject with the complaint (or reasons where the matter originated from an internal review), asks for a written response, may call for additional material, and issues written reasons.
Where the judge sees fit, the complaint proceeds to a review panel made up of members of the complaints committee; review panels can investigate further and may commission an external investigator.Review panels work from the record (unless they order further investigation) and may dismiss matters or find misconduct, neglect, or incapacity. They can order private or public reprimands, require apologies or remedial conditions (education, counselling), impose other non-monetary sanctions, and refer serious matters to an inquiry panel for a full public hearing.
An inquiry panel functions like a statutory commissioner: it conducts a public hearing (subject to limited exceptions), admits relevant evidence even if not trial-admissible, allows cross-examination and representation, and issues decisions with written reasons.Sanctions increase in seriousness at each stage: inquiry panels can suspend a judge or adjudicator with pay or suspend without pay for up to 90 days, and they may recommend revocation of appointment, whereupon the Lieutenant-Governor in Council must revoke. Decisions by inquiry panels are final under the Act but remain amenable to judicial review.
The Act also includes immunity for committee members acting in good faith, requires the Registrar to file an annual complaints report to the Minister, and contains transitional provisions that migrate existing Judicial Council and small-claims complaint roles into the new complaints committee.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The Registrar must complete the initial review of a filed complaint within 20 business days, subject to extension.
The chair of the complaints committee must assign complaints to a judge for review within 15 business days after receiving them from the Registrar or via an internal referral.
A review panel that proceeds to a fuller review must complete its decision within 30 business days after the written-submission period ends.
An inquiry panel may suspend the subject without pay for up to 90 days, or suspend with pay (with or without conditions), and may recommend revocation of appointment.
The complaints committee includes six public members appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council alongside judges, adjudicators and two Law Society appointees.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Definitions and scope
Section 1 sets the actors and terms used across the Act: it defines provincial court judges, adjudicators, the Registrar, the senior adjudicator and the Minister. The section clarifies that references to adjudicators normally include the senior adjudicator and that references to provincial court judges include the chief judge when appropriate, so the statute’s powers and duties attach to those officeholders unless the text specifies otherwise.
Complaints committee composition and appointments
Section 2 creates a standing complaints committee that blends senior judiciary, provincial court judges, adjudicators, Law Society representatives and six public members. Selection authorities are split: chief justices and the chief provincial judge select judicial members, the Law Society selects its two representatives, the senior adjudicator selects one adjudicator member and the Lieutenant-Governor in Council appoints the public members for terms up to five years. The mix is designed to balance legal expertise and public representation but also allocates appointment power across distinct institutional actors.
How complaints are filed and screened
Section 3 prescribes the filing format: complaints must be signed and include contact information, the name of the subject, dates, location and detailed particulars. Section 4 obligates the Registrar to do a preliminary review within 20 business days, to seek more information as needed, and to dismiss complaints that are frivolous, without merit or lack supporting evidence. If retained, the Registrar forwards the file to the committee chair for adjudicative assignment.
Internal reviews, temporary measures and judge review
Section 5 allows certain senior court officials (chief judges and the senior adjudicator) to initiate reviews without an external complaint and requires forwarding such matters to the Registrar. Section 6 authorizes temporary administrative measures — restricting duties, transfers or suspensions — during the review period and permits revocation of a suspension if circumstances change. Section 7 sets time expectations for judge-led reviews, obliges transmission of the complaint to the subject with a request for a written response, and lists judge-level dispositions (dismissal, warning, resolution, expression of concern or referral to a review panel).
Review panel mechanics
Section 8 prescribes how the chair appoints a review panel from committee members, ensuring the panel includes a senior court judge, a provincial court judge if the subject is a provincial court judge, an adjudicator if the subject is an adjudicator, and one public member; quorum rules are specified. Section 9 governs the panel’s review-from-the-record process, its power to commission investigations, the 30-business-day decision window after submissions, and the range of sanctions short of a full inquiry, including referral to an inquiry panel.
Inquiry panel and final decisions
Sections 10–13 create inquiry panels for full hearings, define composition (two senior judges, a provincial court judge or adjudicator if the subject is of that class, a Law Society member, and a public member), authorize public hearings with limited secrecy exceptions, and grant inquiry panels broad powers to receive evidence, order cross-examination and craft remedies. Important practical rules: hearings must be held within a prescribed window unless extended, inquiry panels may suspend with or without pay (or recommend revocation), decisions must be issued with written reasons and are final under the Act but open to judicial review within 30 days.
Revocation, immunity, reporting and transitional repeals
Section 14 mandates that the Lieutenant-Governor in Council revoke an appointment when an inquiry panel recommends it, and permits the Minister to release the inquiry decision in the public interest. Section 15 provides immunity from suit for committee members acting in good faith. Section 16 requires the Registrar to produce an annual report to the Minister summarizing complaints activity and outcomes. The transitional provisions repeal and migrate numerous provisions from the Provincial Court Act, the Judicature Act and the Small Claims Act to consolidate complaints handling under the new Act.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on this topic across all five countries.
Explore this topic in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Complainants and court users — gain a single, statutory pathway with clear filing rules, a named gatekeeper in the Registrar, and defined timelines for reviews and public hearings.
- The public — benefits from greater lay representation on decision-makers and a statutory requirement for public hearings (subject to limited redactions), which increases transparency on serious misconduct findings.
- Court administration and the provincial justice system — receive standardized procedures and reporting obligations, which should improve case management and data on judicial conduct over time.
Who Bears the Cost
- Provincial court judges and adjudicators — face more formalized scrutiny, potential suspensions, reputational effects and the administrative burden of responding to complaints.
- The provincial government and court administration — must resource the Registrar’s enhanced screening role, investigations, panels and possible costs (including reimbursement orders and paid suspensions), creating budgetary pressures.
- Public appointees and Law Society designees — bear time and responsibility for participation on panels and risk reputational exposure; their roles require sustained availability and engagement.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is accountability versus judicial independence: the Act seeks faster, more transparent discipline to protect public confidence, but accelerated timelines, mixed appointment powers and enforceable sanctions (including mandatory revocation following an inquiry) risk compressing procedural safeguards and politicizing the final step in removing a judge or adjudicator.
The Act foregrounds accountability but raises implementation questions. The statutory timelines (screening and decision windows measured in business days) aim to speed resolution, but the compressed schedule may force cursory reviews unless the Registrar and panels exercise extension powers liberally — that, in turn, undercuts the Act’s speed objective and may become a source of litigation over procedural fairness.
The combination of internal judicial selection of some members and external political appointment of public members creates a hybrid governance model; it balances perspectives but also creates potential friction about independence, perceived bias and conflicts of interest when judges review judges.
Another tension arises from the mix of public hearings and confidentiality tools: the Act requires hearings to be public but permits exclusions and initial private sanctions, producing variable publicity outcomes that could leave complainants or subjects dissatisfied. The obligation that the Lieutenant-Governor in Council must revoke an appointment on an inquiry panel recommendation removes a discretionary gate at the executive level, which clarifies finality but also concentrates political exposure in revocation cases.
Finally, the Registrar’s expanded role, the option to hire external investigators, and potential costs tied to suspensions and reimbursements expose the government to resource and litigation risk unless implementation is matched with funding and clear operational guidance.
There's more to this law than the bill.
Codify Laws traces every connection across the legislative lifecycle.