A CJC review panel reprimanded the judge for not correcting his error for 14 months
A Canadian Judicial Council review panel has ordered a seasoned Ontario judge to apologize to a man convicted of manslaughter after the judge imposed the wrong sentence on him and did not correct the error for 14 months.
The review panel for the CJC, which is responsible for reviewing complaints about federally appointed judges, said in a June 23 decision that while it was satisfied that Justice Andrew Goodman of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice would not repeat his mistake again, Goodman should have taken more proactive steps to address the error.
The panel said it was also concerned that Goodman did not “fully appreciate” how his mistake impacted Peter Khill, whom Goodman sentenced to eight years in prison in 2023, and his counsel.
“While Justice Goodman suggests a lack of prejudice to Mr. Khill… Mr. Khill, his counsel, and Crown counsel would have been adversely affected by this delay,” the review panel said. “Mr. Khill, for a significant time, remained under the belief that he was sentenced to a substantially lengthier sentence.
“It may very well have been that if Justice Goodman’s error as to the length of sentence had been immediately corrected, there would not have been any appeal,” the review panel added. “Presumably, the need for the appeal would have come at some cost and certainly additional effort on the part of both Crown and defence counsel.”
The review panel ordered Goodman to apologize to Khill and his counsel. The review panel also issued a public reprimand to Goodman, but said his mistake did not justify his removal from office.
The CJC released the decision last week.
The Ontario Court of Appeal became aware of Goodman’s mistake in August 2024, when Goodman wrote a letter to the appellate court’s associate chief justice, explaining that he had prepared multiple drafts of reasons for Khill’s sentence and mistakenly read out the wrong draft during Khill’s sentencing the previous summer. Goodman had intended to sentence Khill to six years in prison instead of eight.
At the time Goodman informed the associate chief justice, the appellate court had been preparing to hear Khill’s appeal of his sentence.
In his letter, Goodman said that after he realized he delivered the wrong sentence, he consulted colleagues and concluded that he was functus officio, or no longer had authority over the matter. Based on this conclusion, the judge took no further steps to address his error until the appellate court was about to hear Khill’s appeal.
The CJC received two complaints about the incident. Both complaints alleged Goodman knew about his error but failed to take any action until more than a year later.
One of the complaints also argued it was inappropriate for Goodman to consult his colleagues about his error and said the situation “reeks of some type of conspiracy to obstruct justice by all of the parties.” The complaint asked the CJC to discipline the colleagues Goodman spoke to.
In its decision on Khill’s appeal, the Ontario Court of Appeal reduced Khill’s sentence to six years. The appellate court also determined that Goodman was not functus officio and could have corrected his mistake either immediately afterwards or shortly after.
The CJC review panel meanwhile expressed concern that Goodman seemed to minimize the consequences of his mistake by indicating that Khill was released on bail and that he ultimately did correct his error.
“This review panel wishes to be clear in stating that Justice Goodman’s inaction in this case should not be rationalized or reduced to the inaction that follows from a mere legal misapprehension,” the review panel said.
“Instead, Justice Goodman’s inaction constitutes a serious ethical lapse and a failure… to act in a manner that would have more reasonably and promptly provided the requisite notice and transparency to not only the parties, but also the broader public whose own understanding is critical to maintaining public confidence in the administration of justice.”
However, the review panel also noted that Goodman “has unreservedly apologized for his mistake” and that judges are vulnerable to human error. The review panel also said that there was no evidence Goodman acted in bad faith, that the judge has spent his career “going above and beyond” to make sure cases are heard in a timely manner, and that it had no concerns that Goodman would make the same mistake again.
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
