The Honourable Mr. Justice Paul J. Cosgrove


    Austin v. Austin 2001 OJ 1365 Haunts conference

    R. v. N.J.M. 2002 OJ 482 Kingston Police


Latest News

On March 12, 2007, however, the appellate division of the Federal Court of Canada reversed the trial division, and found against Justice Cosgrove. The Federal Court of Appeal set aside the decision of the Federal Court, dismissed the application for judicial review, and referred the matter back to the Inquiry Committee of the Canadian Judicial Council.


Wow, a judge is  a judge, you expect a judge to be a judge, then suddenly, out of the blue a whole load of allegations of incompetency or incapacitation descend upon him. This writer knows what it is like to be the victim of false allegations, I tried very hard without success to see it from Justice Cosgrove's position. This is a very sad story about a judge who lost it. The government, rightly or wrongly wanted to exercise "control", only problem is, regardless of the right or wrong of Cosgrove's actions, just why should the Attorney General have any more rights to a complaint than a member of the public? If the Attorney General of Ontario can simply make a complaint and get rid of a judge just how can judges be expected to be impartial and not worry about their political masters?

We already have a very serious problem with political considerations such as extreme feminism controling judges decisions, we don't need even more extreme narrow minded legally ignorant politicians telling judges what is legally, oops, politically correct. 

This story has not ended. Did the Honourable Justice Cosgrove get the help he needed?

The Bad News is that we are plagued with judges with mental health problems, personality disorders and a pathological hatred towards self represented litigants and especially, self represented fathers. To be fair on this page, Justice Cosgrove has so far not drawn attention to his treatment of fathers or self represented litigants. The terrible thing is that we generally have more judges who hate self represented litigants and are prepared to abuse their power simply to get rid of a case and win "brownie points" for the opposing lawyer who they may just run into at the next free drinks event.

The Good News.

If you look at the files below, that contain perhaps some of the best examples of precedents that   you are likely to see.

It's really simply, download the pdf copy and convert it to word, if you can't do that then type it in word for word and understand each and every word in what ever document you happen to have an interest in.

These documents are very well drafted, they are enjoyable reading and I hope you enjoy them as much as I did.


20071129 Ontario judge loses bid to block fitness inquiry

News from the Canadian Justice Council

20051122 Notice of Appeal by the Attorney General of Canada

Decision of the Federal Court of Canada (Constitutionality of s. 63(1) of the Judges Act) (October 2005) [PDF]

Application for Judicial Review by Mr Justice Paul Cosgrove (January 2005) [PDF]

Inquiry Committee Reasons (Constitutionality of s. 63(1) of the Judges Act) (16 December 2004) [PDF]

Appendix A (to the Inquiry Committee Reasons)  (16 December 2004) [PDF]

Appendix B (to the Inquiry Committee Reasons) (16 December 2004) [PDF]

Factum of the Honourable Justice Paul Cosgrove (3 December 2004) [PDF]

Factum of the Independent Counsel (Regarding the Constitutionality of s. 63(1) of the Judges Act) (3 December 2004) [PDF]

Factum of the Attorney General of Canada (29 November 2004) [PDF]

Factum of the Canadian Superior Court Judges Association (29 November 2004) [PDF]

Factum of the Criminal Lawyers Association (29 November 2004) [PDF] 20041129factumCLA

Motion Record of the Honourable Justice Paul Cosgrove (18 October 2004). [PDF, 4MB]

Responding Motion Record of Independent Counsel (Regarding the Constitutionality of s. 63(1) of the Judges Act). [PDF, 3MB]