Case information

Courts – Judges – Reasonable apprehension of bias – Whether test for disqualification for reasonable apprehension of bias is met by establishing it was more likely than not that a judge’s mind was predisposed or not perfectly open – Whether test should be refined or clarified for ex parte applications with no record and no opportunity to seek recusal – Did the Court of Appeal err?

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

In 2012, a large investigation of drug trafficking resulted in Mr. Baldovi and 22 others being charged with drug offences, proceeds of crime offences, firearms offences and conspiracy offences. The bulk of the Crown’s evidence was collected pursuant to six judicial authorisations for wiretaps and video surveillance issued by Mainella J., then on the Court of Queen’s Bench. Mr. Baldovi and others challenged the authorisations based in part on claims of reasonable apprehension of bias. Before he became a judge, Mainella J. had worked in the same office as the Crown counsel who applied for the authorizations. In an unrelated case, he had prosecuted Mr. Singh who was a named target in the authorisation applications. Joyal C.J. dismissed a motion to exclude the evidence, holding that there was no reasonable apprehension that Mainella J. had been biased. Mr. Baldovi was convicted of multiple offences. The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal from the convictions.