Only Covid-vaccinated judges permitted to hear in-person cases
In 2021, Chief Judge of the Nova Scotia Provincial Court, Pamela Williams, imposed a vaccine mandate on all Provincial Court judges. Only judges vaccinated for Covid would be permitted to hear in-person cases in court. Judge Rickcola Brinton objected to this policy. In an email to her colleagues, she wrote, “I realize I may be in the minority, but I echo some of what [another judge] said, as I have concerns with medical privacy. I also know that the vaccination mandates and passports may be disproportionately impacting racialized communities. And as an essential service, will we be creating a two-tiered society for those who already feel as though we are not free to serve them?”
Undue pressure to disclose medical issues and vaccination status
Brinton declined to share her private medical information with Williams. In response, Williams threatened Brinton with suspension and referred her to the Judicial Council, which handles misconduct complaints against judges.
Following this, Brinton then went on medical leave. Williams sent written and phone communications directly to the office of Brinton’s doctor, requesting details of Brinton’s medical issues relating to her medical leave, as well as her Covid vaccination status.
On June 7, 2023, Brinton submitted a judicial misconduct complaint against Williams, alleging that she had applied undue pressure to disclose her vaccination status and had inappropriately contacted her doctor. The Chief Justice of the Nova Scotia Supreme Court summarily dismissed the complaint on October 10, 2023, but Brinton was undeterred.
A quick dismissal by the Chief Judge
She filed a case challenging the dismissal of her complaint against Williams, arguing that the Chief Judge had improperly dismissed her complaint by exercising the role of a judicial review committee. Such committees are normally composed of a judge, a lawyer, and a layperson. In this case, however, the Chief Judge decided to dismiss Brinton’s complaint unilaterally. Brinton also argues that the Chief Justice should have allowed her to respond to arguments that her complaint should be dismissed. Finally, Brinton argues that the judge failed to appropriately balance the dismissal of her complaint against her constitutional rights and principles, including the principle of judicial independence and the right to keep her personal medical information private. In summary, Brinton argues that judicial independence and personal privacy are significant enough that her complaint should have garnered greater consideration by the Chief Judge and should not have been summarily dismissed.
Is the justice system functioning properly across Canada?
Brinton’s initial complaint as well as the ensuing challenge raise issues about the proper functioning of the justice system, both in Nova Scotia and across Canada. Her case engages the principles of individual judicial independence, judicial impartiality, and by extension, the rule of law itself. Her case also highlights concerns about the working relationships between the Chief Justice and their fellow judges and the proper scope of a Chief Justice’s authority within those relationships.
Will Brinton’s complaint about Williams and the invasion of her privacy be considered? A hearing on this question will be held at the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia in July 2024.
