For nearly a decade, I have been raising concerns about the conduct of Justice Barbara M. Young and the broader accountability mechanisms that are supposed to oversee Canada’s judiciary.
An Enhanced photo of Justice Barbara M. Young using AI:
This is not a new story.
My first complaint to the Canadian Judicial Council (CJC) regarding Justice Barbara Young dates back to November 2017. In reality, however, my concerns began much earlier — in 2016 — when she first presided over a civil matter involving me.
It was during those proceedings that Justice Young issued what I continue to regard as one of the most egregious rulings ever made against me. As a self-represented litigant appearing before her, I found many of the interactions and decisions in that courtroom deeply troubling. The experience was surreal and remains etched in my memory nearly a decade later.
At the time, I was among many Canadians who still believed judicial corruption simply did not exist within Canada’s federally appointed courts. If someone had told me then that a judge could be influenced, compromised, or fail to act impartially, I would have dismissed the idea outright. Yet my experience before Justice Young fundamentally changed that view.
Based on what I witnessed and experienced firsthand, I came away believing that the outcome of the proceeding had been predetermined and that I was not receiving a fair hearing. Those concerns ultimately formed the basis of my first CJC complaint in 2017.
Since then, I have submitted additional complaints, follow-up correspondence, supporting materials, court transcripts, affidavits, and documentary evidence relating to Justice Young’s conduct. Most recently, I filed further complaints in 2025.
To date, every complaint has been dismissed by the Canadian Judicial Council, despite my continued efforts to bring forward what I believe are serious concerns regarding judicial accountability, transparency, and public confidence in the administration of justice.
Every one of those complaints was dismissed.
The purpose of this article is not to re-litigate a specific court proceeding, nor to name parties or counsel from matters that remain sensitive. Instead, it is to examine a larger issue:
What happens when a citizen repeatedly raises concerns about judicial conduct and the system refuses to investigate?
⚖️ MY EXPERIENCE
Years ago, I appeared before Justice Barbara Young in a civil proceeding that would ultimately have devastating consequences for my life. In part her ruling from February 2018 put my in jail wrongfully at the beginning of Covid based on a false affidavit that she knew was false and was provided no evidence for… We both knew as did my lawyer at the time that there were serious issues with the evidence being presented to the court. I believed relevant facts were being ignored. I believed I was not being heard. But being heard did not matter to Justice Barbara Young!!
The result was a series of rulings that contributed to years of litigation, financial ruin, loss of professional standing, imprisonment, and ultimately the destruction of the life I once knew.
Whether others agree with my assessment is beside the point.
The point is that I exercised the only avenue available to an ordinary citizen:
I filed complaints with the Canadian Judicial Council. The Canadian Judicial Council (CJC) was created in 1971 by the Canadian Parliament to maintain and improve the quality of judicial services in Canada’s superior courts. In a constantly changing world, the CJC gives Canadians a judicial system based on modern practices, in keeping with the values of our society.
I wrote to Chief Justices.
I wrote to Attorneys General.
I wrote to politicians.
I wrote to regulators.
I wrote to journalists.
Nothing happened.
And get this meesage from the Chief Justice on the CJC website … oh the irony of it all:
NOTE THAT IS CHIEF JUSTICE RICHARD WAGNER WHO ALSO RESPONDED TO MY COMPLAINTS AGAINST JUSTICE BARBARA YOUNG AS THE TIMELINE SHOWS BELOW:
📂 THE CJC COMPLAINTS
In November 2017, I filed my first formal complaint against Justice Young. The first of many to come for almost a decade actually.
The complaint was dismissed.
Subsequent complaints to the CJC were dismissed.
Further correspondence was dismissed.
For years I was told my concerns lacked merit.
I was informed that my allegations were unsupported, speculative, or failed to meet the threshold for action.
Meanwhile, Justice Young remained on the bench.
I continued documenting my concerns.
The CJC continued rejecting them.
HERE ARE MY RECEIPTS OF THOSE CJC COMPLAINTS JUST FYI:
📅 CJC Complaints Against Justice Barbara M. Young
1. November 7, 2017
First formal complaint filed with the Canadian Judicial Council against Justice Barbara Young.
Referenced repeatedly in your correspondence as:
CJC File No. 18-0336
Related to her handling of the civil matter in which she presided over proceedings involving you in 2016–2018.
2. May 2025
You reference filing renewed complaints in May 2025 against multiple judges, including Justice Young.
The material does not provide an exact filing date for the Young complaint, but it does reference:
May 27, 2025 warning letters to the CJC.
May 30, 2025 CJC acknowledgment under File No. 25-0458.
3. August 18, 2025
Formal complaint submitted:
“Formal Complaint – Justice Barbara M. Young (BC Supreme Court) re: Cowichan Tribes v. Canada (Attorney General), 2025 BCSC 1490”
Sent to:
Canadian Judicial Council
Chief Justice Richard Wagner
Federal Minister of Justice
BC Premier David Eby
BC Attorney General Niki Sharma
The complaint expressly states it is a renewed complaint building on the original November 7, 2017 complaint.
📋 Timeline Currently Supported by Documents
Date
Event
2016
Justice Young first presides over proceedings involving ME.
Nov 7, 2017
First CJC complaint against Justice Young
Jan 9, 2019
CJC dismissal correspondence referenced
Mar 20, 2019
Letter to Chief Justice Wagner regarding judicial concerns
May 2025
Renewed complaints involving Justice Young and others
May 30, 2025
CJC acknowledgment (File 25-0458)
Aug 18, 2025
Formal renewed complaint regarding Justice Young and Cowichan decision
🔍 Additional Complaints
My August 18, 2025 complaint also states:
“This builds directly upon my original complaint of November 7, 2017 … along with others that followed over the years including complaints against Justice Madam Young and other Federal Judges in May 2025.”
NOTE THAT IT WAS MAY 2025 WHEN DANNY KEITH MARTIN BEGAN HARASSING MY WIFE AND I – I DO NOT BELIEVE IN COINCIDENCES!!
Justice Young became the author of one of the most controversial judicial decisions in British Columbia’s modern history involving Indigenous land claims… and that is an understatement actually.
📌 A review of the Cowichan Decision
Readers should review the Cowichan decision for themselves and not simply rely on media headlines, political commentary, or my own views. The judgment spans hundreds of pages and arose from what has been described as the longest civil trial in Canadian history, involving approximately 513 hearing days over more than a decade. Regardless of where one stands on the outcome, the decision has generated significant legal, political, and public debate across British Columbia and Canada. The Province of British Columbia has already announced an appeal, ensuring that the issues raised by the case will continue to be scrutinized by higher courts.
One thing I would recommend for credibility is keeping the section on Justice Young separate from the section on the Cowichan ruling. Present the chronology:
Your experience before Justice Young.
Your CJC complaints dating back to 2017.
The dismissals by the CJC.
Justice Young later presiding over the Cowichan case.
The ruling immediately generated political, legal, and public controversy.
The Province of British Columbia announced it would appeal.
Senior government officials publicly criticized the decision and warned of significant consequences flowing from the judgment.
Regardless of where one stands on the legal merits of that case, it raises an unavoidable question:
What if earlier concerns about judicial conduct had been properly examined instead of automatically dismissed?
That question deserves discussion.
🔍 A QUESTION OF OVERSIGHT
The issue here extends far beyond one judge.
My experience has led me to question whether meaningful oversight of federally appointed judges actually exists.
When complaints are repeatedly dismissed.
When complainants are labelled vexatious.
When requests for transparency are denied.
When the same institutions continually investigate themselves.
Public confidence suffers.
The judiciary depends on trust.
Trust requires accountability.
Accountability requires scrutiny.
🇨🇦 THE IRONY
One of the great ironies in all of this is that Justice Young’s most controversial ruling involved Indigenous land rights and reconciliation.
Justice Young herself is widely recognized as one of the first Indigenous women appointed to the Supreme Court of British Columbia.
That historic achievement should have strengthened public confidence in the justice system.
Instead, the controversy surrounding the ruling has deepened divisions and generated widespread debate across British Columbia and beyond.
For me, it was impossible not to reflect on my own experiences before the same judge years earlier.
🐺 THE BOY WHO CRIED WOLF
For almost ten years I have repeated the same concerns respecting Justice Barabara Young.
I have written dozens and dozens of letters.
I have filed complaint after complaint.
I have watched every door close… and have a murder plot and my house firebombed at Xmas 2025 and January 2026 respectively.
The easiest way to silence a whistleblower is not to investigate what they are saying — it is to destroy their credibility.
First, you label them a troublemaker.
Then you call them vexatious.
If that doesn’t work, you portray them as mentally ill, unstable, paranoid, or delusional.
If they continue speaking, you threaten them with legal consequences, financial ruin, professional discipline, or imprisonment. Then the death threats come and murder plots and the firebombing of your home!!
And if they still refuse to be silent, you make an example of them.
In my case, I experienced years of litigation, professional sanctions, threats of imprisonment, and ultimately incarceration itself. The message was clear: learn your lesson, stop asking questions, stop exposing uncomfortable truths, and stop speaking out.
Fear becomes the weapon.
Not just the fear of jail, but the fear that anything you say can and will be used against you. The fear that every email, every blog post, every interview, and every public statement could trigger another legal attack.
History shows that whistleblowers, dissidents, and truth-tellers are rarely defeated by facts. More often, they are isolated, discredited, institutionalized, bankrupted, imprisoned, or otherwise removed from public view. The objective is not to prove them wrong. The objective is to make others afraid to listen.
The real warning is not directed at the whistleblower. It is directed at everyone watching.
“Look what happened to them.”
“Do you really want to be next?”
That is how systems protect themselves when they no longer wish to confront the truth.
The second easiest way is to say they are obsessed.
The third is to simply ignore them.
Eventually people stop listening.
It becomes the modern version of the boy who cried wolf.
The difference, from my perspective, is that the wolf was always there.
⚠️ CONCLUSION
This article is not about seeking sympathy.
It is about documenting a record.
A record of complaints.
A record of dismissals.
A record of institutional silence.
Whether history ultimately proves me right or wrong is not for me to decide.
What I do know is this:
For nearly a decade I have warned about Justice Barbara Young.
For nearly a decade those warnings were ignored.
Today, following one of the most controversial judicial rulings in British Columbia’s history, many people are finally asking questions.
The questions I have been asking since 2017.
And perhaps the most important question of all:
Who watches the watchdogs when the watchdogs refuse to act?
Black Sheep Whistleblower
“Sunlight remains the best disinfectant.”
📌 NOTICE REGARDING FACTS, OPINIONS, AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION
This article reflects my personal experiences, observations, opinions, and interpretations of events that have affected me and my family over the past decade.
Where factual statements are made, they are based upon records in my possession, including court documents, transcripts, affidavits, correspondence, regulatory decisions, freedom of information records, complaint filings, and other documentary evidence.
Nothing in this article is intended to defame any individual or institution. Readers are encouraged to conduct their own research and review publicly available records where applicable.
Many of the matters discussed remain the subject of ongoing public debate, legal proceedings, regulatory inquiries, freedom of information requests, and formal complaints. As such, some conclusions expressed herein constitute opinion based upon the information currently available to me.
Supporting documentation for many of the statements contained in this article can be produced upon request, subject to privacy obligations, publication bans, court orders, confidentiality requirements, and legal restrictions that may apply.
I reserve the right to update, amend, correct, or supplement this article as additional information becomes available.
Leave a Reply