The complainant alleged that the judge had taken too long to render judgment: he said he would give his decision in the week following the hearing, despite the fact that her counsel had "emphasized that her state of health was serious"

20020013 - The complainant alleged that the judge had taken too long to render judgment: he said he would give his decision in the week following the hearing, despite the fact that her counsel had “emphasized that her state of health was serious.” She alleged she was forced to settle six weeks later, as she was too ill to continue the proceeding.

The judge was asked for his comments. The complainant was informed of the Council’s mandate. She was told that a six-week delay did not raise any ethical question where the judge said he needed time, on account of his workload, to reflect on the merits of the decision. The complainant was informed that the judge was very sorry if a six-week delay had caused difficulties to any of the parties in question and said he would certainly have preferred to be able to render a decision on the day of the hearing, or within a short period of a few days. However, in the circumstances, it required more careful thought and six weeks after the hearing he was just about to review the matter so that he could render a judgment, when he was told that the parties had settled. The complainant was informed that a judge ordinarily has six months to render judgment and in the circumstances any further action by the Council in accordance with its mandate under the Judges Act was not warranted.