Rarotonga, 2010

Simon's Megalomaniacal Legal Resources

(Ontario/Canada)

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW | SPPA / Fairness (Administrative)
SMALL CLAIMS / CIVIL LITIGATION / CIVIL APPEALS / JUDICIAL REVIEW / Practice Directives / Civil Portals

home / about / Democracy, Law and Duty / testimonials / Conditions of Use

Civil and Administrative
Litigation Opinions
for Self-Reppers

Simon's Favourite Charity -
Little Friends Lefkada (Greece)
Cat and Dog Rescue


TOPICS


Bias in Adjudicators - Recusal

. Danso v. The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario et al.

In Danso v. The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario et al. (Div Court, 2024) the Divisional Court cites some bias authorities, here on the issue of'recusal':
[74] Counsel for the HRTO properly submits that in order to find grounds for concluding bias, or a reasonable apprehension of bias, the Applicant must rebut a strong presumption of impartiality. Such an inquiry must be highly fact-specific and the inquiry contextual (See Hazelton Lanes at paras. 58-65).

[75] In Beard Winter LLP v. Shekhdar, 2016 ONCA 493, at para. 10, the court stated:
In my view, a judge is best advised to remove himself if there is any air of reality to a bias claim. That said, judges do the administration of justice a disservice by simply yielding to entirely unreasonable and unsubstantiated recusal demands. Litigants are not entitled to pick their judge. They are not entitled to effectively eliminate judges randomly assigned to their case by raising specious partiality claims against those judges. To step aside in the face of a specious bias claim is to give credence to a most objectionable tactic.
[76] In reading the decision, it was up to the Adjudicator to control the process before the Tribunal and interpret the evidence. A decision contrary to the claim of a party is not, in and of itself, sufficient to rebut the strong presumption of impartiality and neutrality: Taucar v. Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, 2017 ONSC 2604 (Div. Ct.).

[77] As stated in Moore v. The Estate of Lou Ferro et al., 2022 ONSC 1343 (Div. Ct.), at para. 76, cogent evidence is required to rebut this presumption.

[78] The grounds for finding bias or a reasonable apprehension of bias must be substantial and require cogent evidence to rebut the strong presumption of impartiality: Hazelton Lanes Inc. v. 1707590 Ontario Limited, 2014 ONCA 793, 326 O.A.C. 301, at paras. 58–65.
. Collins v. Canada (Attorney General)

In Collins v. Canada (Attorney General) (Fed CA, 2023) the Federal Court of Appeal considered an appellant's 'bias' motion for recusal of one of the assigned court panel, here premised on his past judicial involvement with some of her cases:
[1] The appellant moves for an order that Stratas J.A. recuse himself from this appeal. She says that Stratas J.A. is biased against her. She relies on various directions, orders and judgments Stratas J.A. has made or concurred with in cases involving her since 2011.

....

A. The principles governing a recusal motion

[3] The Chief Justice assigns judges of this Court to serve on panels to hear and decide cases. The judges have no input into this decision.

[4] In this case, consistent with the Court’s standard practice, Stratas J.A. had no input into the Chief Justice’s decision to assign him to this case.

[5] From time to time, judges receive a list of the cases to which they are assigned. Stratas J.A. learned that he was assigned to this case roughly a month ago. When he was assigned to it, he had no concern about his ability to accept the assignment.

[6] Once assigned to a matter, a judge cannot refuse the assignment or recuse, absent good legal cause.

[7] One example of good legal cause is actual bias in favour of or against a side on all or part of the case. A judge with that mental state must recuse forthwith and refrain from being involved in it at all.

[8] Another legal cause for recusal is if the judge is not actually biased but the circumstances are such that a reasonable, fully informed person, thinking the matter through, would conclude that it is more likely than not that a judge, whether consciously or unconsciously, would not decide the case fairly: Committee for Justice and Liberty et al. v. National Energy Board et al., 1976 CanLII 2 (SCC), [1978] 1 S.C.R. 369 at 394.

[9] The two tests—one for actual bias, the other for apparent or apprehended bias—give voice to the fundamental principle that “justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done”: R. v. Sussex Justices, [1923] EWHC KB 1, [1924] 1 K.B. 256.

[10] The judge against whom an allegation of actual bias is made, here Stratas J.A., is the only person who can confirm or deny the allegation. Thus, whether acting alone or on a panel, only that judge can decide the issue of actual bias.

[11] But where, as here, the Court is comprised of three judges on a panel and where the individual judge denies the allegation of actual bias, the appearance may nevertheless be such that the judge must recuse for reasons of fairness and to maintain the reputation of the Court and the public’s confidence in the administration of justice. Due to the broader sweep of apparent or apprehended bias—an institutional rather than an individual concern—all three judges comprising the Court must consider and determine the issue.

[12] There is a strong presumption that judges will obey their judicial oaths and act impartially. Unwarranted allegations of judicial bias can harm the administration of justice: Es-Sayyid v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2012 FCA 59, [2013] 4 F.C.R. 3. Alleging judicial bias is “a serious step that should not be undertaken lightly”: R. v. S.(R.D.), 1997 CanLII 324 (SCC), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 484 at para. 133.

[13] Thus, motions such as this should be brought only where there is a “real likelihood or probability of [actual or apparent] bias”, supported by “cogent evidence”: Yukon Francophone School Board, Education Area #23 v. Yukon (Attorney General), 2015 SCC 25, [2015] 2 S.C.R. 282 at para. 25; Cojocaru v. British Columbia Women’s Hospital and Health Centre, 2013 SCC 30, [2013] 2 S.C.R. 357 at paras. 22 and 27. A wholly unwarranted motion should normally be met with an enhanced award of costs.


CC0

The author has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this Isthatlegal.ca webpage.




Last modified: 02-03-24
By: admin