2 total
A motion for recusal based on unsubstantiated allegations of past judicial hostility towards paralegals was denied.
The defendant brought a motion to recuse the justice of the peace on grounds of reasonable apprehension of bias.
The defendant's agent alleged that the justice had exhibited hostility towards paralegals and agents in prior proceedings, specifically citing an incident involving another paralegal in a different matter and historical treatment of agents in 2004 when they lacked Law Society licensing.
The justice rejected the motion, finding the allegations were unsubstantiated, lacked specificity, and did not meet the threshold for establishing a reasonable apprehension of bias.
The justice noted that the paralegal in question was not representing the defendant and that the 2004 practice predated the licensing of paralegals by the Law Society.
The court dismissed the appeal of a traffic conviction, affirming the denial of an adjournment and the use of an ex parte trial when an agent withdraws.
The appellant appealed his conviction for disobeying a stop sign contrary to section 136 of the Highway Traffic Act.
The appeal raised four grounds: improper denial of an adjournment application, failure to afford meaningful opportunity to review disclosure, conviction by section 54 rather than section 9.1 of the Provincial Offences Act, and insufficient evidence of identification.
The court dismissed all grounds of appeal, finding that the adjournment was properly denied, the brief hold-down for disclosure review was reasonable, section 54 was the appropriate procedure, and identification evidence was sufficient.
