The appellant appealed his convictions for criminal harassment, making harassing telephone calls, and breaching probation, arguing that the trial judge was biased and pre-judged the merits of the offences during the complainant's examination-in-chief.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's remarks, while unfortunate in timing and language, did not meet the high threshold for actual bias.
The majority concluded the remarks were an inquiry into the complainant's expected outcome and noted the lack of objection from defence counsel.
A dissenting judge would have ordered a new trial, finding the trial judge had made up his mind before the completion of the examination-in-chief.
