Justice was upset; Mr Thompson wanted to have a meeting with Chief Justice because court process was going so slowly. So a meeting was arranged between senior council and the Chief Justice (CJ) (one party met with judge without other party present -- ex parte communication). A threat was there made to go to the SCC. Associate and Chief justices wanted to avoid this.
One judge cannot interfere with the reasoning of another judge, as this goes to judicial independence.
Institutional administrative independence (not this case)
** A court has a right to administer its own proceedings -- structure its own scheduling, assigning cases to rooms, etc.
Individual administrative independence (this case)
** 1. Independence of the judge was undermined by this process, because a reasonable member of the public would conclude that the actions of the judge were a result of pressure.
** 2. Independence of the Associate Justice is interfered with by the CJ