Case information

Criminal law — Extraordinary remedies — Case management — Superintending and reforming power of Superior Court — Writ of prohibition and certiorari in aid against trial judge — Reasonable apprehension of bias — Whether Quebec Court of Appeal erred in law in requiring that application for recusation be first presented to judge alleged to have lacked impartiality, thereby limiting or even negating Superior Court’s superintending power in context of remedy of prohibition — Whether Quebec Court of Appeal erred in law in assessment of concept of “reasonable apprehension of bias” by adding to it requirement based on harm suffered by aggrieved party.

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.

The applicant faced 19 charges divided into three separate court files and two overlapping trials presided over by the respondent judge. In parallel with those proceedings, the respondent judge presided over the interim release hearing of the applicant’s alleged accomplice. Following the interim release hearing, the applicant requested that the hearing of his motion for a stay of proceedings be adjourned, alleging in particular that he needed time to deal with the appearance of bias in an amended motion. The respondent judge denied that request for a postponement, and the applicant filed a motion for a writ of prohibition with certiorari in aid against the respondent judge. He alleged that the judge failed to discharge his duty of impartiality, and he faulted him for his treatment of the evidence submitted by the prosecution during the trial. The Superior Court judge granted the motion, declared that the respondent judge exceeded his jurisdiction and referred the matter back to the Court of Québec to be assigned to another judge. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal on the grounds that the evidence accepted by the Superior Court judge did not establish a reasonable apprehension of bias and that the respondent judge acted in the exercise of his jurisdiction. It also noted that the applicant should have first filed an application for recusation at first instance before availing himself of the extraordinary remedy sought. It set aside the Superior Court’s judgment and referred the applicant’s files back to the court of first instance for continuation of the trials.