I can say something very briefly. I think Ms. Conlon probably has more direct experience.
It runs the gamut. The CJC sees an awful lot of complaints that get screened out, because people don't like what a judge decided, and they throw into it a bit of the judge's manner, tone or whatever—that kind of stuff. There is a distinct need for a screening mechanism, because things that are not in this purview come up a lot in the judicial councils.
Beyond that, it can be the individual conduct of judges—sexual misconduct or whatever, where there's a victim in a general public interest sense, not just a complainant. There can be interference in lobbying, which occurred recently with one judge, I believe, but the review panel did not agree this was the correct characterization. There's a whole range of things that can throw the integrity of the judiciary into doubt.