1.2: Purpose and intention of these rules
4.13: Appointment of case management judge
4.14: Authority of case management judge
4.15: Case management judge presiding at summary trial and trial
4.16: Dispute resolution processes
4.17: Purpose of judicial dispute resolution
4.18: Judicial dispute resolution process
4.19: Documents resulting from judicial dispute resolution
4.20: Confidentiality and use of information
4.21: Involvement of judge after process concludes

Case Summary

The Applicant requested that the Case Management Judge be recused due to insight obtained by the Case Management Judge while conducting the Judicial Dispute Resolution. The Applicant submitted that this insight would lead to bias against the Applicant.

The Court held that in the area of Case Management “courts should not easily and quickly accede to requests for recusal”. Additionally, the Court held that delay in family law cases involving children should be avoided if possible.

The Court held that the Applicant willingly entered into the JDR process knowing who the Justice was, and allowing the Application would derail the litigation. The Application was dismissed.

View CanLII Details