Canada (Minister of National Revenue) v. Mathers

Canada (Minister of National Revenue) v. Mathers

The motion was dismissed because the objector failed to establish a reasonable apprehension of bias; the evidence showed the spouse worked in a different subgroup and there was no credible, objective basis to conclude the prothonotary would be predisposed to favour the Agency or that his spouse's career depended on his rulings, and therefore no real likelihood or probability of bias was demonstrated.

Citation
2001 FCT 104
Parties
Judgment Creditor: Her Majesty the Queen (Minister of National Revenue); Judgment Debtor: Jean‑Guy Mathers; Objector: Cinéparc St‑Eustache Inc.; Intervener: Deputy Minister of Revenue of Quebec
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
21 February 2001
Procedural Posture
Income Tax Garnishment With Motion to Disqualify (recusal) / Pre‑trial Motion to Disqualify Member of the Court
Outcome
Motion dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Recusal, Reasonable Apprehension of Bias, Garnishment, Judicial Conduct, Conflict of Interest
Source Language
English
Administrative Law Tax Law Procedural Law Judicial Ethics Recusal Reasonable Apprehension of Bias Garnishment Judicial Conduct +1 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 16 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen (Minister of National Revenue)

Judgment Creditor

Jean‑Guy Mathers

Judgment Debtor

Cinéparc St‑Eustache Inc.

Objector

Deputy Minister of Revenue of Quebec

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Income Tax Garnishment With Motion to Disqualify (recusal) / Pre‑trial Motion to Disqualify Member of the Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a reasonable apprehension of bias exists because the prothonotary's spouse works in the same federal Taxation Branch as counsel for the judgment creditor
  2. 2 Whether the facts alleged establish a real likelihood or probability of bias sufficient to require disqualification
  3. 3 Whether procedural rules (Rule 82, Rule 4 and arts. 234 et seq. C.C.P.) or precedent compel recusal

Ratio Decidendi

The motion was dismissed because the objector failed to establish a reasonable apprehension of bias; the evidence showed the spouse worked in a different subgroup and there was no credible, objective basis to conclude the prothonotary would be predisposed to favour the Agency or that his spouse's career depended on his rulings, and therefore no real likelihood or probability of bias was demonstrated.

Court Disposition

Motion dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Motion by objector dismissed with costs.
  • Judgment creditor's currently pending application shall be replaced on the roll as soon as this decision becomes final.