Student's Last Name 1 Student's Name Instructor Course Title Date of Submission Question 1 A young man was sentenced and served one year in prison for unlawfully giving assistance to four members of the Front de libration du Qubec. He subsequently completed law school and practised law for 20 years. Ten years after he completed the prison sentence, he applied for and was granted a pardon. When he applied to be appointed as a judge, he did not disclose his conviction or that a pardon had been granted. He was appointed as a judge, but soon after, his failure to disclose the conviction and pardon was discovered. A complaint was filed against him with the Canadian Judicial Council. The matter in this case relates to whether the young man would prevail over the complainant to retain his position as a judge. In view of the facts of the case, I think the outcome of the case should be that the judge prevails in proving that his credibility and ethical standing is above reproach and that he should not be disqualified. Canada lacks a general statutory requirement for disclosure on the matters herein involved. However, this does not resolve the ethical question of when the judge should disclose to the parties a matter which might be considered as giving a rise to a potential conflict of interest. According to the practice in other countries such as Australia, the judge must disclose any interest of factor that might suggest that the judge should be disqualified. This however, is based on the premise that disclosure is made with a view of seeking consent of the parties for the judge to hear a case. Student's Last Name 2 A good interpretation of the above paragraph, which was borrowed from the Ethical Principles for Judges brochure is that the judge is not required to make any disclosures when being appointed as a judge but instead, the disclosures should be made in relation to a case, in case the judge feels that the information is likely to influence the judicial decision that the judge makes. For example, the judge against whom the complaint has been raised would be required to make this disclosure as when seeking qualification or disqualification from sitting on a bench hearing a case against the Front de libration du Qubec. In other words, the understanding with regard to this case is in relation to whether or not the judge's independence and impartiality would be disqualified but not in relation to whether or not he qualifies to be a judge especially when considered that the judge shows respect for the law when I he was imprisoned and pardoned. Disqualifying him on grounds of failure to disclose his conviction touches on his individual rights and privileges. Furthermore, the non-disclosure is not one of the reasons covered under section 65 of the "Judges Act" upon which the CJC can recommend the removal of a judge from office