To: The Ontario Judicial Council
P.O Box 914
31 Adelaide St. E.
Adelaide Street Postal Station
Toronto, Ontario M5C 2K3
Complaint RE: Judicial Conduct of S Kershman
Dear Ontario Judicial Council;
I am writing to file a complainant against provincial justice, the Honourable Mr. Justice Stanley Kershman, for a decision he rendered in the following case:
Decision date: March 23, 2009
Court File No. 07-CV-039927SR
Date Heard: 2009/01/22
Richard Warman v. Constance Wilkins-Fournier and Mark Fournier, et all.
(Ruling attached as Exhibit “A”)
In particular, my complaint is over erroneous comments that Justice Kershman simply added into the decision, that were not a part of any evidence tendered or submission made.
At para. 33, Justice Kershman states:
 In the case before the court, we are dealing with an anti-hate speech advocate and Defendants whose website is so controversial that it is blocked to employees of the Ontario Public Service.
This statement is incorrect, is not derived from any evidence submitted, and as such was never able to be properly challenged by counsel.
Not a single document submitted by either side in this dispute, mentioned any allegation that Ontario government employees are blocked from visiting this site. Further, no evidence was called to support this allegation, and it was not brought up at all during oral arguments.
Instead, Justice Kershman, simply throws in comments about this website, which by their very nature is exceedingly negative of the defendants, with no foundation in the evidence.
A simple google search of the Ontario government blocking of websites, shows that many websites are blocked, but not due to their “controversial” nature, as Justice Kershman erroneously claims, but rather due to a host of other reasons, including that government employees spend too much time on those websites. Such websites under this category include sites such as Facebook and Youtube. According to CTV, Facebook has in excess of half a million users in Toronto alone.
In this case, the provincial justice, both added unsubstantiated and untested evidence into a ruling, then used it as justification in his ruling in favour of the plaintiff.
I believe that the following is a violation of the professional duties of a Justice in Ontario, which constitutes misconduct and brings the judiciary into disrepute. If provincial justices can simply add material into judgments, which are not subjected to even the minimal requirements of knowledge of the parties, the appearance and application of justice is seriously diminished.
I look forward to your response on this matter. If you have any questions, or require further information, please contact me via Email or telephone.
25 March 2009