The complainant was a represented party in a family law (custody) case

20060003 - The complainant was a represented party in a family law (custody) case. He alleged that the judge discriminated against him on the basis of gender and was overly sympathetic to his spouse because she was without counsel. The complainant further alleged that the judge was personally acquainted with his counsel and was biased against him.

The Council reviewed the reasons for judgment and the matter was closed. A key factor in the proceedings was the credibility of the parties, and after the judge heard all the evidence, the complainant’s testimony was not accepted. Review of the judge’s decision was only available by way of appeal. As to the allegation of conflict of interest, the Council cannot respond to a request to recuse a judge. Judges are presumed to be impartial. The complainant’s lawyer should have raised an objection at the outset of the proceedings if there was any suggestion of impartiality. The complainant provided no information to support the allegation of bias.