Canadian Justice Review Board – Curious Question

Has anyone heard of the Canadian Justice Review Board or Canadian Justice Review Council? I happened upon their website last night. It appears to be a grass roots organization with some directors in high places. One must take out a $20 membership to see the full content of the website so it has more the feel of a private club than an organization working for citizens.

The home page explains their mandate:

The Canadian Justice Review Board (CJRB) is a national advisory organization which provides an analysis of proposed and existing legislation and its impact. It serves as an information collection agency which receives and organizes public comments about the state of the justice system. This information is used to identify questionable legal practices and other systemic shortcomings. The CJRB consists of the Directors of the Canadian Justice Review Council, an independent, not-for-profit corporation, plus associate members.


The mission of the Canadian Justice Review Board is to publicize important judicial activities and their impact on Canadian society, and to advocate for every person the fundamental right to receive from the courts non-political decisions that are based on established law.

Our goal is to provide the means by which your views will be heard

However, if one digs a bit into the articles section, there is an Editor’s Note that puts it into every day terms:

The Canadian Justice Review Board is a coalition of citizens who are concerned that the rules and laws by which they are governed are at risk when courts claim powers for themselves to operate as benevolent autocrats and to rule as they please. Articles that will be accepted by the Canadian Justice Review Board for display on this site must therefore refrain from being solely “issue” driven and must contribute to a constructive dialogue about the Canadian judicial “process”.

It therefore seems to be less about legislative issues, and more about the judiciary. They also make provocative statements in their article summaries, but then the whole articles are locked up for member only access. This summary perhaps explains why:

Internet: It used to be that only established media and publishing organizations had to worry about libel, but now anyone with web access and a quick temper can find themselves facing a lawsuit. (cases documented and explained)

From what I see on the website, this is a few people with an axe to grind. Or is what I see on the website not an accurate representation?

Just curious.


  1. Interesting find, Connie. Funny that the content’s closed; just the choir preaching to the choir, then. And their “retro” website with the tacky ads!

  2. Look closely at who’s involved. It’s the REAL Women and the Calgary political scientists who’ve been universally critical of the “Court Party”. This is clearly a group with an agenda.

    You can sense where they’re going in the archive:

  3. Busted! That explains it. While I believe everyone should be allowed free speech, sometimes it is difficult to discern what some organizations are *really* talking about. You can say what you like, as long as you tell me what you are really saying. Cheers!

  4. Since your July postings concerning the Canadian Justice Review Board (CJRB) have not raised any further discussion, the following observations may be helpful:

    Our members and 12 directors are representative of the full political spectrum. While it is true that some directors have identifiable political affiliations and are known as candidates for the NDP, the Liberals, and the Conservatives, others are non-partisan retired lawyers, judges, business people, and ordinary folk. This is why the organization is a “coalition”.

    The CJRB reference website is not flashy, but it is substantive and it attracts an ever-increasing number of visitors. Current, previously published articles are constantly submitted for posting on the CJRB website
    at the tops of their respective categories for others to view. Very few items are limited to supporters. As with the SLAW blog site, we accept donations.

    And yes, the CJRB has a mission statement; we are not wandering around aimlessly. The “agenda” of the mission statement addresses issues of process rather than policy. The CJRB does not advocate positions on specific issues, we simply say that debates about public policy including social issues should be resolved democratically by the parliamentary process. We say that the Courts should apply and uphold the law, and should not substantially remake it. In this regard, the CJRB monitors the process of judicial appointments, the conduct of judges, and the separation of the judicial and legislative branches of government.

    David A. Kahn

  5. Thanks for that information.