Sztern v. Deslongchamps

Sztern v. Deslongchamps

Application for judicial review was premature because no exceptional circumstances justified immediate review of the interlocutory recusal decision; applying established tests the Delegate was not in conflict, no confidential information relevant to the disciplinary matter was shown, and no reasonable apprehension of bias existed; the appropriate standard was correctness and the Delegate's decision was correct.

Citation
2008 FC 285
Parties
Applicant: Henry Sztern; Respondent Delegate of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy: Me André Deslongchamps; Respondent Senior Analyst for the Office of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy: Sylvie Laperrière
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
4 March 2008
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review – Administrative Decision Under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act / Application for Judicial Review of Interlocutory Recusal Decision (dismissed)
Outcome
Application for judicial review dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Recusal, Reasonable Apprehension of Bias, Interlocutory Review/prematurity, Delegation of Adjudicative Authority, Judicial/tribunal Ethics
Source Language
English
Bankruptcy and Insolvency Administrative Law Judicial Review Procedural Fairness Conflict of Interest/ethics Recusal Reasonable Apprehension of Bias Interlocutory Review/prematurity +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Henry Sztern

Applicant

Me André Deslongchamps

Respondent Delegate of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy

Sylvie Laperrière

Respondent Senior Analyst for the Office of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review – Administrative Decision Under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act / Application for Judicial Review of Interlocutory Recusal Decision (dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Delegate was in a conflict of interest by virtue of association with BLG and Me Duchesne
  2. 2 Whether a reasonable apprehension of bias existed such that recusal was required
  3. 3 Whether judicial review of an interlocutory recusal decision was premature absent exceptional circumstances

Ratio Decidendi

Application for judicial review was premature because no exceptional circumstances justified immediate review of the interlocutory recusal decision; applying established tests the Delegate was not in conflict, no confidential information relevant to the disciplinary matter was shown, and no reasonable apprehension of bias existed; the appropriate standard was correctness and the Delegate's decision was correct.

Court Disposition

Application for judicial review dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Application for judicial review dismissed with costs.