Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Contributors
- Foreword
- Preface
- Table of cases
- Table of statutes
- Part I
- Part II
- Part III
- Part IV
- 14 Judges, bias and recusal in Australia
- 15 Judges, bias and recusal in Canada
- 16 Judicial recusal in New Zealand
- 17 Judges, bias and recusal in South Africa
- 18 Judges, bias and recusal in the United Kingdom
- 19 Bias, the appearance of bias, and judicial disqualification in the United States
- Part V
- Part VI
- Index
- References
15 - Judges, bias and recusal in Canada
from Part IV
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 07 September 2011
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Contributors
- Foreword
- Preface
- Table of cases
- Table of statutes
- Part I
- Part II
- Part III
- Part IV
- 14 Judges, bias and recusal in Australia
- 15 Judges, bias and recusal in Canada
- 16 Judicial recusal in New Zealand
- 17 Judges, bias and recusal in South Africa
- 18 Judges, bias and recusal in the United Kingdom
- 19 Bias, the appearance of bias, and judicial disqualification in the United States
- Part V
- Part VI
- Index
- References
Summary
In Canada, as in other jurisdictions, natural justice has included in the injunction that, ‘No one may be the judge in his or her own cause’. This rule began with a concern for self-dealing and pecuniary interests, but has evolved to include a range of biases, including attitudinal ones.
The essence of bias is a closed mind, or put differently, the absence of an open mind – as one judge observed: ‘bias represents a predisposition to decide an issue or cause in a certain way which does not leave the judicial mind perfectly open to conviction’.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Judiciaries in Comparative Perspective , pp. 301 - 321Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2011