The matter arose from Justice Goodman’s sentencing of Peter Khill on June 6, 2023, for manslaughter. In R. v Khill, 2023 ONSC 3374, Justice Goodman later described it as “a momentary lapse of judgment” when he inadvertently read from the wrong version of his sentencing decision, imposing an eight-year custodial sentence when he had intended to impose six years — a difference of two full years of imprisonment.
Justice Goodman became aware of his error after delivering the sentence but took no corrective action until Aug. 12, 2024, when he wrote to the associate chief justice of the Ontario Court of Appeal just before Khill’s scheduled sentence appeal. In his letter, Justice Goodman explained that he believed he was functus officio and therefore no longer had jurisdiction to correct the error.
The Ontario Court of Appeal, in its Feb. 27, 2025, decision in R. v. Khill, 2025 ONCA 146, imposed the six-year sentence that Justice Goodman had originally intended. However, the appellate court was sharply critical of the trial judge’s handling of the situation.
“Whether or not the trial judge believed he was functus officio, doing nothing was not a reasonable option in the circumstances, especially when he imposed a penitentiary sentence that was 1/3 (i.e., two years) longer than the one he had intended to impose,” the Court of Appeal stated. The court emphasized that Justice Goodman “should have promptly requested that the parties attend before him, in open court, to address the matter.”
In a decision released July 30, a CJC review panel comprised of Associate Chief Justice Shane I. Perlmutter, Justice John S. Little and public member Curtis Kleisinger applied the established Marshall test to determine whether Justice Goodman’s removal from office could be justified.
The test was set out in the 1990 Report to the Canadian Judicial Council of the Inquiry Committee in Marshall and, as noted by the panel, can be expressed in the following question: “Is the conduct alleged so manifestly and profoundly destructive of the concept of the impartiality, integrity and independence of the judicial role, that public confidence would be sufficiently undermined to render the judge incapable of executing the judicial office?”
While concluding that removal was not warranted, the panel found that the conduct required significant disciplinary action.
It distinguished between Justice Goodman’s initial error — reading the wrong version of his decision — and his subsequent failure to address it promptly. While accepting that “judges are human and make mistakes,” the panel characterized the delay as “a serious ethical lapse” rather than mere legal misapprehension.
The review panel identified several concerning aspects of Justice Goodman’s conduct, beginning with a lack of transparency. It noted that the transparency expected of federally appointed judges would generally require immediate reporting to the chief justice of circumstances that could potentially undermine public confidence.
The panel rejected Justice Goodman’s argument that no harm occurred because Khill was released on bail pending appeal. The panel found that Khill, Crown counsel and defence counsel were all adversely affected by the delay, noting that the appeal might have been unnecessary had the error been corrected promptly.
Drawing on the CJC’s Ethical Principles for Judges, the panel emphasized that judges hold positions of significant trust and that conduct exhibiting integrity is essential for maintaining public confidence in the judiciary.
One complaint alleged impropriety in Justice Goodman’s consultation with judicial colleagues about how to address his error. The panel largely adopted the Court of Appeal’s analysis on this issue, noting that while consultation among judges is appropriate and valuable, “at the end of the day, it is the presiding judge who decides the case, and it is that judge who must ‘own’ their decision.”
The panel imposed a public reprimand — described as “the most severe sanction available short of a recommendation for removal” — along with an order that Justice Goodman apologize to Crown and defence counsel within 30 days.
In determining the appropriate sanction, the panel considered factors including that this was an isolated incident, Justice Goodman’s acknowledgment of error, his long and distinguished career, and the absence of any evidence of bad faith. However, these mitigating factors were outweighed by the seriousness of the conduct and its impact on public confidence.
The panel specifically noted its concern that Justice Goodman “does not fully appreciate how his errors affected Mr. Khill and his counsel” and had not apologized to those most directly affected.
The panel emphasized that while Justice Goodman’s precise conduct — reading the wrong judgment — was unlikely to recur, he “could and should have taken more proactive steps following his recognition of his mistake.”
The decision noted that Justice Goodman was appointed to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice 15 years ago and has had what Chief Justice Geoffrey Morawetz once described as “a long and distinguished legal and judicial career.” The chief justice also noted that Justice Goodman has demonstrated commitment to serving the public interest through his criminal law expertise and frequently presiding during non-sit and vacation weeks.
The CJC’s jurisdiction over federally appointed judges allows it to investigate complaints and impose sanctions ranging from expressions of concern to recommendations for removal from office. A CJC spokesperson told Law360 Canada that it is not CJC policy to identify counsel representing judges under investigation.
If you have any information, story ideas or news tips for Law360 Canada, please contact John Schofield at john.schofield1@lexisnexis.ca or call 905-415-5815.