Complainants represented by counsel at the trial of their action against an oil company and others wondered whether the judge should have presided over their case because of his “prior involvement with [the oil] and environmental companies”

20020007 - Complainants represented by counsel at the trial of their action against an oil company and others wondered whether the judge should have presided over their case because of his “prior involvement with [the oil] and environmental companies.” The trial transcript showed that the judge disclosed to the parties at the outset his prior relationship with the oil company and his belief he had acted “for or against various insured interests in environmental matters.” He had stated that he was satisfied that there was nothing he knew about the case that would cause a problem. The complainants’ counsel, and counsel for the oil company, were content to have the judge preside over the trial.

The complainants were advised that the judge had disclosed his prior involvement with the oil company and stated his conclusion that he knew nothing of the case that would cause a problem with him presiding over the trial. The complainants were advised that there was no basis to conclude that the judge had acted improperly or was in a conflict of interest. The complainants were further advised that the Council had no mandate to review the judge's decision. An error on the part of the judge, if any, would not amount to judicial misconduct.