Complainant alleges differential treatment on part of the judge towards the defence and the Crown.

20170018 - Complainant alleges differential treatment on part of the judge towards the defence and the Crown. More specifically, she claims that the judge lacked impartiality and fairness; addressed inappropriate comments and spoke harshly to the defence. It is alleged that the Justice displayed nonverbal behaviours that showed a lack of respect and dislike bordering disdain towards the accused, as well as animosity towards his counsel.

The issue of bias, which is a legal issue, was addressed in this case by the Court of Appeal, who mentioned the absence of record evidence at trial confirming the allegations regarding judges’s demeanor. After careful review of the audio recording, the Council found that the recording does not corroborate the allegation of differential treatment. The Council, however, did find that the judge intervened by both assisting and reprimanding counsel for each party as he deemed necessary and raised his voice on occasion when doing so. All judges have a responsibility to maintain firm control of proceedings, as they deem necessary. While the judge’s tone of voice in these few instances was not ideal, his interventions aimed at controlling the lengthy proceeding of this difficult trial. Finally, as these functions fall within the ambit of judicial discretion, they are not issues of conduct. As such the matter does not warrant further consideration by Council.