Home : File a complaint : Jurisdiction of the Conseil

Does your complaint fall under the jurisdiction of the Conseil

Any person can make a complaint to the Conseil de la justice administrative for a breach of the rules of ethics by any administrative law judge who is:

  • A member of the Tribunal administratif du Québec;
  • A member of the Tribunal administratif du travail;
  • A member of the Tribunal administratif des marchés financiers;
  • A commissioner or special clerk of the Régie du logement;
  • A member of the Bureau des présidents des conseils de discipline.

To find out how to file a complaint please refer to the section How to file a complaint.

The complaint referred to the Conseil must invoke a breach of a rule of ethics by an administrative judge, which means that it must apply to the conduct of this person. The Conseil de la justice administrative cannot under any circumstance rescind or amend a decision rendered by the member or commissioner.

It is often difficult to distinguish between a breach of ethics and a challenge of the decision. Part of the role of the Conseil is to ascertain the difference between errors that can be processed through a procedure such as an appeal, a review or a revocation, and breaches of the rules of conduct requiring the Conseil’s intervention.

When the Conseil examines a complaint to decide whether it is admissible or not it first question concerns the nature of the ground alleged by the complainant. The distinction between the conduct of the member or commissioner and his decision is therefore fundamental. Any complaint which does not allege a reason of an ethical nature will be deemed inadmissible and consequently dismissed by the Conseil.

To help you identify what falls within the province of ethics, here are a few examples of the most common situations:

Examples (non restrictive)
of complaints
for ethical reasons

Examples (non restrictive)
of complaints
for non-ethical reasons

  • Conduct liable to discredit the honour, dignity or integrity of the office of the administrative law judge;

  • Conduct that points to a lack of impartiality (bias) or prejudice;

  • Gestures or words that denote a lack of courtesy, an arrogant or contemptuous attitude;

  • Unpleasant remarks, the use of coarse language, rudeness;

  • A gesture or words that indicate discrimination or harassment based on race, colour, sex, pregnancy, sexual orientation, civil status, age except as provided by law, religion, political convictions, language, ethnic or national origin, social condition, a handicap or the use of any means to palliate a handicap;

  • An unreasonable delay to render a decision;

  • Political activities;

  • Conflict of interest;

  • Illegal activities;

  • Activities that are incompatible with the exercise of the functions of an administrative law judge or that discredit the Tribunal.

  • The complaint is based on the complainant’s disagreement with the result of the decision rendered;

  • The complainant alleges an error of the administrative law judge in the application or interpretation of the law;

  • The complainant disagrees with the evidence accepted by the administrative law judge, for instance because he did not believe the “right” version of the facts;

  • The complainant disagrees with the decision of the administrative law judge to refuse a piece of evidence;

  • The decision of the administrative law judge involves one or more errors;

  • The complaint is based on a breach or an error of the court personnel;

  • The decision rendered is not consistent with another decision rendered previously.

  If you consider that the decision is wrong, consult a lawyer or another competent person to find out if the decision you find unsatisfactory can be challenged. The law provides for review, revocation or appeal mechanisms that can be exercised within certain time limits.  

The information provided on the site is of general intent. It does not represent a legal opinion. For advice on a specific file it is better to apply to a competent resource.