The court emphasized that judicial impartiality is strongly presumed
The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal dismissed a motion to recuse a judge from an upcoming child support appeal, ruling that the appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence of bias or meet the legal threshold for recusal.
In Ward v. Murphy, 2024 NSCA 81, the appellant, Paul Ward, filed the motion to remove Justice Van den Eynden from the appeal panel. The appeal stemmed from a 2022 decision in which the Court of Appeal ordered a rehearing on the issue of Ward's income for child support purposes. The court found the trial judge’s initial calculation of pre-tax corporate income (PTCI) attributed to Ward flawed and sent the case back for reassessment by a new judge. Following the rehearing, the court recalculated Ward’s PTCI and adjusted his child support obligations accordingly, though it did not result in the reduction he had sought.
In his recusal motion, Ward argued that a judge who had previously ruled in his case should not be involved in the current appeal. His primary complaint was dissatisfaction with a previous court ruling and a belief that judges may hold biases against men in family law cases. However, he provided no clear evidence of actual bias or a reasonable apprehension of bias.
Justice Van den Eynden, who had been part of a prior appeal ruling in Ward’s favour on certain issues, rejected the recusal request. She explained that Ward had not met the high legal threshold to establish bias. The judge clarified that an informed person, viewing the matter objectively, would not reasonably conclude that her involvement in the case would prevent a fair and impartial hearing.
The appeal court emphasized that judicial impartiality is strongly presumed, and recusal can only be warranted if serious grounds are demonstrated. Since Ward failed to present such grounds, the motion was dismissed, and the judge will remain on the panel for the upcoming appeal.
