DATE: 20020926 DOCKET: C36481
COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
RE: NELSON RAVKA (Applicant/Appellant) – and – JANET RAVKA (Respondent/Respondent)
BEFORE: MORDEN, BORINS and SIMMONS JJ.A
COUNSEL: D. Smith for the appellant
Sandy J. Morris for the respondent
HEARD: September 23, 2002
RELEASED ORALLY: September 23, 2002
On appeal from the judgment of Justice John H. Jenkins dated May 9, 2001.
ENDORSEMENT
[1] The main ground of appeal is that the trial judge’s intervention, in the course of the presentation of the case on each side, was so extensive that it “crossed the line” and resulted in his losing jurisdiction to give a valid judgment.
[2] We have, very regretfully, determined that we are obliged to give effect to this submission. The trial judge, throughout the whole of this brief trial, dominated the presentation of the evidence. This began at the very outset of the appellant’s case where the trial judge sought to narrow the case down to “why his (the appellant’s) income went down” and it continued to the end of the trial. The 218 pages of transcript show 101 interventions, some of them lasting for several questions. Some of them were appropriate for clarification, but many were not. The trial judge’s conduct resulted in many objections by counsel on each side that he was interfering with the presentation of counsel’s case. In our view, the objections were validly based.
[3] Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the judgment dated May 9, 2001 and the costs order dated May 30, 2001 are set aside and a new trial is directed.
“J.W. Morden J.A.”
“S. Borins J.A.”
“Janet Simmons J.A.”