Category Archives: Judicial Ethics

A Woolley: The immorality (and morality) of morality-based judging

Posted on by

Posted on December 10, 2012 by Alice Woolley

PDF version  and original posting available on the ABlawg Website : www.ablawg.ca

Case commented on: R v Zentner, 2012 ABCA 332

Introduction

On November 22, 2012, in its decision in R v Zentner, 2012 ABCA 332, the Alberta Court of Appeal reversed the sentencing decision of Provincial Court Judge G.K. Krinke, in which Judge Krinke imposed a conditional discharge on a funeral director convicted of fraud.  The Court did so on the grounds that Judge Krinke failed to follow applicable (and binding) precedent and did not comply with the requirements of the Criminal Code.  The Court held that the “legal foundation of the sentence imposed was either non-existent, or was installed upside down” (para 60). Continue reading →

Businessman files complaint about judge

Posted on by

From the Ottawa Citizen online: Don Powell alleges Federal Court justice had undisclosed conflict of interest, should have recused himself

By Don Butler, Ottawa Citizen December 4, 2011

An Ottawa businessman who sued the federal government after his company lost a $428-million contract has filed a complaint with the Canadian Judicial Council against the Federal Court judge who dismissed the lawsuit in September.

The complaint, made in October by Don Powell, president of TPG Technology, alleges that Justice David Near had an undisclosed conflict of interest and should have recused himself from the case, adding: “The facts in this case may be unprecedented in Canadian history.”

For the full story found on the Ottawa Citizen website, click HERE.

Plagiarizing B.C. judge prompts new trial

Posted on by

From the CBC news website

osted: Apr 14, 2011 5:05 PM PT Last Updated: Apr 14, 2011 5:25 PM PT

A B.C. woman who was awarded millions of dollars to help care for her brain-damaged son will have to go back to court to try to get the money because the judge in the lawsuit plagiarized most of his decision, a higher court has ruled.

For the full story, click HERE.

CJC review of Justice Robert Dewar

Posted on by

From the Canadian Judicial Council website:

Canadian Judicial Council completes its review of complaints made against justice Robert Dewar

Ottawa, 9 November 2011 – The Canadian Judicial Council announced today the results of its review of complaints made against the Honourable Robert Dewar of the Manitoba Court of Queen’s Bench. The complaints focused on comments made by Justice Dewar after finding Mr Rhodes guilty of sexual assault and in the context of sentencing in the case of The Queen v. Rhodes.

The complaints against Justice Dewar were reviewed by the Honourable Neil C. Wittmann, Chief Justice of the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta and Vice-Chairperson of the Judicial Conduct Committee of Council.

For the full comments on the CJC website, click HERE or continue reading.  Continue reading →

Ethics, judges and mediation

Posted on by

Ethics, judges and mediation

By Cristin Schmitz

September 02 2011 issue, Lawyers Weekly

As part of a planned update of its ethical guidelines, the Canadian Judicial Council (CJC) is poised to examine the thorny questions of whether, when and how judges may appropriately do court-based mediation, The Lawyers Weekly has learned.

For the full story in the Lawyers Weekly, click HERE.

Public Inquiry in the case of Associate Chief Justice Lori Douglas

Posted on by

Canadian Judicial Council announces it will proceed with a public inquiry in the case of Associate Chief Justice Lori Douglas

Ottawa, 6
July 2011 – The Canadian Judicial Council announced today that there will be a public inquiry about Associate Chief Justice Lori Douglas of the Court of Queen’s Bench of Manitoba. After conducting a detailed review of a number of allegations about Associate Chief Justice Douglas, a Review Panel of five judges has concluded that the matter may be serious enough to warrant the judge’s removal from office. The Panel has therefore decided that an inquiry committee should investigate the matter. Continue reading →

Bryden & Hughes: Judicial Disqualification

Posted on by

Philip Bryden and Jula Hughes, “The Tip of the Iceberg: A Survey of the Philosophy and Practice of Canadian Provincial and Territorial Judges Concerning Judicial Disqualification” 48 Alberta Law Review.

Abstract

The “reasonable apprehension of bias” test for judicial disqualification has been a fixture in the common law world for centuries; despite this settled state of the law, judges and commentators have been concerned that the application of the test might be contentious in a significant number of cases. In this article, the authors report on an empirical study surveying Canadian provincial and territorial judges on common scenarios which raise the possibility of recusal. Situated in the applicable case law, the findings demonstrate a wide divergence of opinion on substance and procedure among respondents in their attitudes toward recusal in situations that are analytically marginal, but not rare. The article concludes with some possible explanations for the divergence.

The article is available here:  http://www.albertalawreview.com/index.php/alr/article/view/89

Comment from Adam Dodek:

It is the first empirical assessment of the practice of judicial recusal in Canada that I am aware of.  The results of Bryden & Hughes work raises serious issues regarding the lack of standards for judicial recusal and the lack of any clear process.  I believe that Phil & Jula plan to pursue this issue further which is good news.  I strongly recommend the article to those of you interested in bias, judicial ethics, etc. Adam