|
Bias in Adjudicators - Prior Involvement with Witness. R. v. Bauman
In R. v. Bauman (Ont CA, 2026) the Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed a criminal appeal, here brought against convictions in "two counts of first degree murder".
The court considered an issue of judicial 'bias', here where the judge had prior involvement with a witness:[181] The trial judge identified the correct test. He cited the leading Supreme Court of Canada authorities: Committee for Justice and Liberty et al. v. National Energy Board et al., 1976 CanLII 2 (SCC), [1978] 1 S.C.R. 369 and R. v. S (R.D.), 1997 CanLII 324 (SCC), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 484. He accurately stated his obligation to “be and … appear to be impartial….” He correctly described apprehended bias as “anything that may [lead] the informed reasonable observer to form a reasonable apprehension that the trial judge might decide the case on some basis other than the evidence”. He appropriately noted that an “apprehension of bias must be a reasonable one held by reasonable and right minded persons … viewing the matter realistically and practically and having thought the matter through”.
[182] Moreover, the trial judge applied the correct test. He referred to objective factors – the lengthy period (25 years) since he had had any interaction with Ms. Adams, the capacity in which he had interacted with her (as a lawyer, long before he was appointed to the bench), her own view that there was no lingering animosity arising out of the historical interactions, the lack of concern by Ms. Adams and her current spouse, Christopher Cherewka, about the trial judge presiding in a case in which they would be witnesses, and his own oath of office. He expressed his ultimate finding that there was no reasonable apprehension of bias in terms of what a reasonable person would conclude.
[183] The appellant has not identified a reversible error in the trial judge’s analysis or conclusion.
[184] We therefore reject this ground of appeal.
|
