Despite the recent dismissal, Justice Rickcola Brinton is pushing forward with her case against former chief provincial court judge, Pam Williams, with the Nova Scotia Judicial Council, over a dispute arising from Covid-19 vaccination policies.

The original complaint by Brinton was a $5 million civil suit naming Williams and other officials.

In summary, the original dispute stemmed from an internal memo expressing a mandatory requirement to show proof of vaccination in order to fulfill judicial duties in person. Judge Brinton expressed discomfort with sharing personal medical records with her employer, to which Williams responded with threats of suspension and judicial review for her actions. However, Williams felt it appropriate to first attempt to contact Brinton’s doctor directly, in writing and again by phone, to obtain her medical information surreptitiously. Her doctor refused to share details.

Brinton filed a complaint with the Nova Scotia Judicial Council which was reviewed by Chief Justice Michael Wood. Wood discussed the complaint with Williams before dismissing it entirely. The content of his discussion with Williams, and the evidence used to dismiss, were never shared with Brinton or her legal team.

Justice Brinton and her lawyers then pursued a judicial review of Wood’s dismissal, stating he was wrong to contact Williams about the complaint, and that he had a duty to let Brinton know how the other judge had responded.

This judicial review process ended July 2nd with Justice Christa Brothers reserving her decision for release at a later date.

Brinton’s legal counsel shared their thoughts, stating “Judge Brinton should be commended for taking a principled stand seeking to uphold public trust in the administration of justice, despite majoritarian sentiment at the time promoting vaccine mandates and the disclosure of private medical information”. Adding, “The Nova Scotia Supreme Court is being asked to uphold the integrity of the process for reviewing judicial misconduct complaints, and to ensure that such complaints are fairly determined.”

An update will be provided when the decision is released.

To read the article written by the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, click here