The appellant was convicted of extortion.
At trial, the judge extensively intervened, interrupting the accused and a defence witness numerous times, asking many questions, and making sarcastic remarks.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.
The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, holding that while a trial judge has the right and duty to intervene to clarify evidence, the extent and manner of the interventions in this case gave the impression that the judge was assisting the Crown, thereby raising a doubt as to his impartiality and violating the principle that justice must be seen to be done.
