What they are — and what they are not
The three letters are screening-stage dismissals of a judicial-conduct complaint by the Canadian Judicial Council, each signed "S. A. Screening Officer" — initials and a title. They concern Chief Justice Morawetz, Justice Karakatsanis, and Justice Carroccia. They are not Supreme Court of Canada rulings. The Supreme Court itself has never denied the filer anything: it has issued no decision, no dismissal, and no court file number on any of his applications — there is no docket, no panel, no decision. A screening dismissal decides the complaint only. The underlying filings were never examined, and no registry inquiry is recorded in the letters.
A fourth Council denial exists and is recorded here so the count is complete: file 25-1065 (February 10, 2026, signed "R.M."), dismissing the filer's October 2025 package for naming no federal judge.
The timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| May 5, 2026, 4:48 p.m. | The complaint is filed — a structured document: three numbered matters, each with dates, addresses and named artifacts. The Council's own acknowledgment quotes it in full. |
| May 6, 2026 | Acknowledged — 1 day. |
| May 7, 2026 | The filer asks in writing for the process manager's name, an indicative timeframe, and whether a named acknowledgment will issue. No answer to any of the three appears in the mailbox. |
| May 15, 2026 | Chief Justice Morawetz's retirement takes effect — 10 days after the complaint against him was filed. The silence complained of ran entirely while he held office; the retirement had been announced January 21, 2026. |
| September 16, 2026 | The three decision letters arrive in one delivery email — 134 days after the complaint. The Morawetz dismissal issues 124 days after his retirement, in one paragraph, without mentioning the sequence. Its conclusion nonetheless matches the Council's published practice; the sequence is what the letter omits. |
The Council publishes no timeline or service standard for screening. "Late" therefore has no published clock to be measured against — the 134 days are stated as a fact, not as a breach of a stated standard.
The grounds, graded against the letters
The filer's grounds were graded against each letter: engaged, answered-something-else, or untouched. The full grading is in the dossier; the load-bearing results:
- Indigence and the denial of legal aid — UNTOUCHED, in all three letters. No letter mentions indigency, legal aid, means, or access to counsel. The words do not appear. (The Supreme Court Registry's own letters, by contrast, pointed the filer to Pro Bono Ontario.)
- The ab-initio ground — ANSWERED-SOMETHING-ELSE. In both substantive letters the answer is an etiquette point: judges ought not respond to correspondence sent directly to them. The allegation — instruments routed to the judges, with receipt artifacts, unanswered for stated periods — is not taken up as alleged.
- "Incomprehensible" — never particularized. Both substantive letters close with the same sentence: "much of the information provided was incomprehensible or did not appear to be related to specified allegations of conduct." No passage, document, or paragraph is identified as the incomprehensible part. Against that sentence stand the letters themselves: they summarize the complaint accurately and in detail — including the filer's 83-day count (February 11 → May 5, 2026), which recomputes exactly. The case was read. What was not done is the particularizing.
- The Karakatsanis letter quotes the filer's claim about the Supreme Court Registry's March 9 acknowledgment — and never answers it. It also omits the March 25 exchange entirely (below).
- The mandamus ground — UNTOUCHED, and the premise is not one the framework recognizes: nothing in the Judges Act makes a conduct review mandatory because mandamus applications exist elsewhere. The Act's own duty — "the Council shall refer every complaint to a screening officer" (s. 89) — was performed; each letter recites the referral. The letters leave the ground unanswered rather than wrong, and this page records that distinction rather than overstate it.
The letters dismiss under s. 90(1)(c) of the Judges Act and paragraphs 6.7(2)(a), (c) and (l) of the Council's Review Procedures (2026): in the screening officer's view the complaints "do not involve judicial conduct and [are] without substance," or are "not written in a manner that is comprehensible or legible."
The Registry record behind the premise
The Council's premise — that no properly filed proceeding was demonstrated — is tested against the Supreme Court Registry's own letters: four human letters in the mailbox (January 30, March 9, March 25, May 8, 2026). March 9 acknowledges two March 5 emails — it is not the acceptance of a filed application. On March 25 the Registry stated it could not access the March 12 Motion Record (sent as an external link); the filer sent the PDFs the same day. May 8 repeats the filing checklist and never confirms acceptance. On this record, the Council's premise is supported as to formal filing — and this page says so, because the defect that stands does not need the premise to be false: a complaint about silence was answered by a process whose own letters leave the grounds above untouched, unparticularized, or answered as something else.
The dismissal is illegitimate. The letters never addressed his demands respecting the arrests; the mandamus was filed right behind; the habeas corpus stands unanswered everywhere and in default today. He followed every Registry step given to him, re-sent the PDFs the same day the link failed, indigent and self-represented. The faults are ab initio and theirs. In his summary of the whole design: "deny you, deny you, deny you."
The three-denials dossier, October 27, 2026 (the three decision letters preserved as PDFs with the filer's records, delivered September 16, 2026, 1:49 p.m. EDT; the Council's May 6, 2026 acknowledgment quoting the complaint verbatim; the Registry letters in the mailbox); Judges Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. J-1, ss. 89–90; the Council's Review Procedures (2026), para. 6.7(2); filings audit, October 27, 2026 (the fourth denial, file 25-1065).