The Test for Reasonable Apprehension of Bias
The test for
reasonable apprehension of bias laid down and consistently endorsed by the
Supreme Court of Canada is:
What would an informed person,
viewing the matter realistically and practically—and having thought the matter
through—conclude. Would he think that it is more likely than not that [the
decision-maker], whether consciously or unconsciously, would not decide fairly.
Yukon
Francophone School Board, Education Area No. 23 v. Yukon Territory (Attorney
General), 2015 SCC 25, [2015] 2 S.C.R. 282, at paras.
20-21.
The reasonable
observer is the
“sort of person who always reserves judgment on every point until she has seen
and fully understood both sides of the argument” and “who takes the trouble to
read the text of an article as well as the headlines”:
Helow v.
Secretary of State for the Home Department, [2008] UKHL
62, [2008] 1 W.L.R. 2416 (U.K. H.L.), at para. 3.
Same
Judge, Different Case
That a judge has
ruled against a party on a legal issue in one case does not necessarily lead a
reasonable observer to conclude that the judge, whether consciously or
unconsciously, would likely be biased when deciding a different legal issue
with respect to that same party in another case.
Miracle
v. Maracle III,
2017 ONCA 195, at para. 4.
Comments
Post a Comment