A litigant complained that the judge would not hear evidence of her illness as part of divorce proceedings

20070002 - A litigant complained that the judge would not hear evidence of her illness as part of divorce proceedings. She also said that the judge did not take into account the fact that she had been recently abused and had to go to a women’s shelter. She said the judge became very angry and “stormed out” of the courtroom, and came back to apologize for the outburst but also to “slam her” with a court order.

A review was made of all the material, including a transcript of the proceedings. The judge was also asked to provide comments about the complaint. This review showed that the judge was only involved in a pre-trial conference, which does not decide any of the issues in question, but is intended to ensure the matter is ready for a trial. The judge’s role is then to set a date for the trial, not to decide on the evidence. Regarding the complainant’s illness, and the abuse she suffered, this was a matter to be addressed at the trial. Regarding the allegation of anger, the judge acknowledged that he had become “cross” with the complainant’s lawyer. He explained that this was the lawyer’s third appearance in Court that day, and that the lawyer had been uncooperative before him. The judge noted that, on that day, he had apologized to the lawyer for his tone of voice. The judge apologized again by letter to the complainant. The decision on the complaint was that the judge acted appropriately in regard to the evidence raised by the complainant, which was a matter to be heard at the trial. While the judge could have been more patient in dealing with the lawyer, no further action was taken in light of the judge’s apology and the lawyer’s own conduct at the time.

Some complaints raise allegations of bias and the judge’s failure to conduct an impartial hearing. There is no question that a litigant has the right to be heard by an independent and impartial judge. The Supreme Court of Canada has said that there is a presumption that all judges will abide by their oath of office and always act impartially. The party who alleges bias has the responsibility to demonstrate that there is bias, real or apparent. It is also the party’s responsibility to raise issues of conflict and ask the judge to recuse himself or herself from the proceedings. The following two complaints are about unsupported allegations of bias.