FavoriteLoadingSave to briefcase | Rating: | By (2012)

  • PrintEmail Link
  • Viewed 725 times | Saved to 291 briefcases
Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Tobiass, [1997] 3 SCR 391 (Link)

Facts:

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.

Ratio:

One judge cannot interfere with the reasoning of another judge, as this goes to judicial independence.

Analysis:

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


Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to participate.

This document is a general discussion of certain legal and related issues and must not be relied upon as legal advice. This document may not have been written or reviewed by a legal practitioner. For more information, please see the website Terms of Service.