FavoriteLoadingSave to briefcase | Rating: | By (2012)

  • PrintEmail Link
  • Viewed 700 times | Saved to 279 briefcases
Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Tobiass, [1997] 3 SCR 391 (Link)


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

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.