FREDERICTON — A national judicial review panel has concluded that a New Brunswick superior court judge engaged in inappropriate conduct when he held an unauthorised private discussion with a junior defence lawyer, but the body stopped short of recommending removal from the bench.
Panel issues public expression of concern and apology order
The Canadian Judicial Council review panel found that Court of King’s Bench Justice Frederick Ferguson, who sits in Miramichi, discussed privileged material with the lawyer and made comments that the panel said were intended to influence an imminent recusal motion. The panel issued a public expression of concern and ordered Ferguson to send a written apology to the junior lawyer within 60 days and to provide a copy of that apology to the panel.
The 13-page ruling, released on Tuesday, arose from a complaint filed in May 2025. The panel dismissed several of the allegations against Ferguson but found sufficient basis to substantiate one: that the judge initiated an unauthorised private conversation with a junior lawyer who was at the courthouse to obtain an audio recording intended for use in a pending recusal motion.
“[The judge] admitted the interaction was ‘plainly wrong’ and an inappropriate use of his authority,”
The review panel reported that the judge discussed a previously dismissed complaint against him and suggested to the junior lawyer there might not be enough time to incorporate the new recording into the motion materials that day. The young lawyer, newly called to the bar, reported feeling intimidated by the interaction, according to the panel’s findings.
Complainant and context
The complaint was brought by lawyer Nathan Gorham, who confirmed to The Canadian Press that he was the complainant. Gorham practises in both Ontario and New Brunswick and his firm, Gorham Vandebeek LLP, has offices in Toronto and Fredericton. The panel dismissed all other complaints against Ferguson except for the one related to the private conversation with the junior lawyer.
In its report, the panel said Ferguson acknowledged the conversation was inappropriate. The judge told the review body he did not intend to interfere with the pending recusal motion but conceded that he should not have put himself in a position where his actions could be perceived as doing so.
Sanctions and implications
The review panel did not find a reasonable basis to recommend removal of the justice from the bench. Instead, the remedial steps focused on a formal apology and the public expression of concern, measures that register censure without moving to more severe disciplinary action.
Legal observers say actions by the Canadian Judicial Council in cases like this aim to protect judicial independence while also ensuring accountability when conduct threatens the appearance of impartiality. The panel’s decision underscores the narrow line judges must walk between administrative or informal interactions and actions that could be seen as exerting influence over ongoing proceedings.
Timeline of key events
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| May 2025 | Complaint filed with the Canadian Judicial Council |
| Aug. 2026 | 13-page panel ruling released; public expression of concern and apology ordered |
The panel’s findings highlight the vulnerability of junior counsel in courtroom settings, particularly when they confront senior judicial officers about sensitive procedural matters. The review noted the junior lawyer felt intimidated after the exchange.
What the order requires
- Written apology from Justice Ferguson to the junior lawyer within 60 days, with a copy to the panel.
- Public expression of concern published by the Canadian Judicial Council.
The review panel’s decision is part of the council’s mandate to evaluate complaints against federally appointed judges and to balance protection of judicial independence with public confidence in the judiciary. By substantiating a single complaint and imposing remedial measures rather than removal, the panel emphasised correction over censure at the highest level.
Copies of the panel’s full report were released Tuesday, providing the details of the exchange and the rationale for the council’s determinations. The ruling will be of interest to members of the legal community across New Brunswick and beyond, particularly those concerned with courtroom procedure, professional conduct and the treatment of junior lawyers.
No further penalties were specified in the panel’s ruling beyond the apology and the public expression of concern.
