A B.C.-based federal judge who had her conduct reviewed for failing to disclose her involvement in a previous workplace complaint and investigation has been issued a “public expression of concern” but will not be removed from her post.
In a decision released late last week, a three-person review panel set up by the Canadian Judicial Council found Justice Negar Azmudeh’s actions “hindered” the Judicial Advisory Committee’s ability to fully consider her application and “undermined to a certain degree the integrity” of the committee’s vetting process.
The JAC is tasked with recommending judicial appointments to the minister of justice.
The review panel had been set up after the council received a complaint from Raj Kandola, who had claimed he had made a workplace harassment complaint against the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB) in 2021.
At the time, Azmudeh worked as the man’s direct supervisor in her role as the assistant deputy chairperson for the Western Region of the IRB’s Refugee Protection Division.
Kandola claimed the Azmudeh subjected him to workplace harassment and discrimination based on a disability, and then improperly interfered with the outcome of the ensuing investigation.
He also alleged that the harassment complaint and investigation were not disclosed by Azmudeh on her application for judicial appointment.
Potential federal judicial appointees are required to fill out a questionnaire that, among other things, asks several questions about the judge’s personal and work histories.
One question asks candidates if they are aware of any current outstanding complaints, investigations or insurance claims against them.
“If appointed, is there anything in your past or present which could reflect negatively on yourself, the judiciary, or the government?” reads another question.
Azmudeh answered “no” to both questions.
In a letter, Azmudeh acknowledged she did not disclose Kandola’s complaint during her judicial application process because she had been told by an IRB investigator that the case would “not involve any remedial or disciplinary measures against her personally, or anyone else,” according to the Canadian Judicial Council decision.
A previous Jan. 3, 2025 ruling found there was no evidence to support the allegations that Azmudeh engaged in workplace harassment and discrimination, and then later sought to halt the investigation.
A letter provided by Chief Justice Paul S. Crampton described Azumedeh— a Coquitlam, B.C., resident who had been called to the British Columbia Bar in 1999—as a “model member of the Federal Court.”
But Azmudeh’s time as a federal judge wasn’t in question. In February 2024, the investigation sparked by Kandola’s complaints ended due to the man’s lack of participation. At the time, Azmudeh had already been appointed to the bench, according to the council’s decision.
“It may be that there is no substance to a complaint, but that is not something for the applicant to pre-determine,” the decision said.
“Public confidence in the judiciary is essential to an effective judicial system and, ultimately, the rule of law. Within that system, judges hold positions of significant trust, confidence and responsibility,” the decision said.
“Conduct, in and out of court, that exhibits integrity ensures public respect for and confidence in the individual judge and, more significantly, contributes to public confidence in the judiciary and the judicial system as a whole. Judges should therefore act with a high degree of decorum, propriety and humanity.”
There was nothing in the file that indicated Azmudeh had deliberately sought to mislead the Judicial Advisory Committees, and there was “no basis” to justify the removal of the judge from office.
However, the council found it could not simply dismiss the complaint, and that applicants for a judicial appointment “must be absolutely forthcoming and candid.”
In issuing a “public expression of concern,” the Canadian Judicial Council decided Azmudeh merited a relatively mild sanction under the Judges Act.
Under the act, the council also has the ability to issue private or public warnings or reprimands; order a judge to apologize or attend counselling; or with consent of the judge, “take any other action the panel considers appropriate in the circumstances.”
