Broda v. Broda, (2001) 286 A.R. 120 (CA)
Judge | Côté, Russell and Paperny, JJ.A. |
Court | Court of Appeal (Alberta) |
Case Date | June 05, 2001 |
Citations | (2001), 286 A.R. 120 (CA);2001 ABCA 151 |
Broda v. Broda (2001), 286 A.R. 120 (CA);
253 W.A.C. 120
MLB headnote and full text
Temp. Cite: [2001] A.R. TBEd. JN.026
Ihor John Broda, Also Known As Ihor Iwan Broda (appellant/defendant) v. Lidia Maria Broda (respondent/plaintiff)
(0003-0565-AC; 0103-0101-AC; 0103-0116-AC; 2001 ABCA 151)
Indexed As: Broda v. Broda
Alberta Court of Appeal
Côté, Russell and Paperny, JJ.A.
June 20, 2001.
Summary:
A husband in family law proceedings requested a judge recuse herself as the case management judge on the grounds of apprehended bias.
The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported 285 A.R. 201, dismissed the application. The husband appealed. He also appealed respecting a ruling respecting his cross-examination of the wife on an affidavit and a ruling respecting documents and undertakings.
The Alberta Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals.
Courts - Topic 689
Judges - Disqualification - Bias - Arising out of participation in prior proceedings - A husband in family law proceedings requested a judge recuse herself as the case management judge on the grounds of apprehended bias - The elements of the apprehended bias relied upon were: the judge heard an ex parte application for a restraining order in private chambers rather than in open chambers; the judge was allegedly biased against physical discipline as disclosed during the hearing on the restraining order; the Associate Chief Justice dealt with the husband's letter request respecting the judge's recusal behind closed doors and without providing the husband with a copy of the transcript of the hearing; since the husband had complained about the judge, the judge must be prejudiced against him - The case management judge dismissed the application - The Alberta Court of Appeal dismissed the husband's appeal - See paragraphs 13 and 14.
Courts - Topic 689
Judges - Disqualification - Bias - Arising out of participation in prior proceedings - A husband in family law proceedings requested a judge recuse herself as the case management judge on the grounds of apprehended bias - The Alberta Court of Appeal stated that the "mere fact that a party has lost some motion or suit before a judge (without a jury) does not entitle that litigant to be thereafter free of that judge. That is so both in later suits of a broadly similar nature, and in later motions in the same suit. Any other rule would render civil and criminal litigation impossible in several situations: (a) a small jurisdiction or community where only a few judges sit regularly; (b) motions to rehear or reconsider previous rulings; (c) situations where it is traditional or even practically necessary to have all matters heard by the same judge, such as (i) English Chancery proceedings, or (ii) suits in other jurisdictions which assign each suit at commencement (in rotation) to one judge, (iii) or motions which arise after trial begins." - See paragraph 16.
Courts - Topic 691
Judges - Disqualification - Bias - Reasonable apprehension of bias - [See first Courts - Topic 689 ].
Counsel:
Louise M. Ares, Q.C., for the respondent;
The appellant appeared in person.
These appeals were heard on June 5, 2001, before Côté, Russell and Paperny, JJ.A., of the Alberta Court of Appeal, who filed the following memorandum of judgment on June 20, 2001.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
R. v. M.L.K., 2004 ABQB 734
...81; 97 W.A.C. 81; 99 C.C.C.(3d) 326; 31 C.R.R.(2d) 38; 1995 CarswellAlta 1028 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 70, footnote 32]. Broda v. Broda (2001), 286 A.R. 120; 253 W.A.C. 120; 2001 CarswellAlta 865; 2001 ABCA 151 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 70, footnote 33]. R. v. Maynard; R. v. Dudley; R. v. Clar......
-
R. v. J.L.M.A., (2009) 464 A.R. 289 (CA)
...refd to. [paras. 15, 65]. R. v. Bolt (R.I.) (1995), 162 A.R. 204 ; 83 W.A.C. 204 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 15]. Broda v. Broda (2001), 286 A.R. 120; 253 W.A.C. 120 ; 2001 ABCA 151 , refd to. [para. 15]. Vysek v. Nova Gas International Ltd. et al. (2002), 303 A.R. 209 ; 273 W.A.C. 209 ;......
-
R. v. Trang (D.) et al., (2002) 332 A.R. 1 (QB)
...refused [1989] 1 S.C.R. xvi; 101 N.R. 159; 48 C.C.C.(3d) vi; 57 D.L.R.(4th) viii, refd to. [para. 135, footnote 97]. Broda v. Broda (2001), 286 A.R. 120; 253 W.A.C. 120 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 148, footnote R. v. Turkiewicz et al. (1979), 50 C.C.C.(2d) 406; 10 C.R.(3d) 352; 103 D.L.R.(3d) 3......
-
Vysek v. Nova Gas International Ltd. et al., 2002 ABCA 112
...and Liberty Foundation et al. v. National Energy Board et al., [1978] 1 S.C.R. 369; 9 N.R. 115, refd to. [para. 23]. Broda v. Broda (2001), 286 A.R. 120; 253 W.A.C. 120 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 23]. R. v. Nova Scotia Pharmaceutical Society, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 606; 139 N.R. 241; 114 N.S.R.(2d) 9......
-
R. v. M.L.K., 2004 ABQB 734
...81; 97 W.A.C. 81; 99 C.C.C.(3d) 326; 31 C.R.R.(2d) 38; 1995 CarswellAlta 1028 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 70, footnote 32]. Broda v. Broda (2001), 286 A.R. 120; 253 W.A.C. 120; 2001 CarswellAlta 865; 2001 ABCA 151 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 70, footnote 33]. R. v. Maynard; R. v. Dudley; R. v. Clar......
-
R. v. J.L.M.A., (2009) 464 A.R. 289 (CA)
...refd to. [paras. 15, 65]. R. v. Bolt (R.I.) (1995), 162 A.R. 204 ; 83 W.A.C. 204 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 15]. Broda v. Broda (2001), 286 A.R. 120; 253 W.A.C. 120 ; 2001 ABCA 151 , refd to. [para. 15]. Vysek v. Nova Gas International Ltd. et al. (2002), 303 A.R. 209 ; 273 W.A.C. 209 ;......
-
R. v. Trang (D.) et al., (2002) 332 A.R. 1 (QB)
...refused [1989] 1 S.C.R. xvi; 101 N.R. 159; 48 C.C.C.(3d) vi; 57 D.L.R.(4th) viii, refd to. [para. 135, footnote 97]. Broda v. Broda (2001), 286 A.R. 120; 253 W.A.C. 120 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 148, footnote R. v. Turkiewicz et al. (1979), 50 C.C.C.(2d) 406; 10 C.R.(3d) 352; 103 D.L.R.(3d) 3......
-
Vysek v. Nova Gas International Ltd. et al., 2002 ABCA 112
...and Liberty Foundation et al. v. National Energy Board et al., [1978] 1 S.C.R. 369; 9 N.R. 115, refd to. [para. 23]. Broda v. Broda (2001), 286 A.R. 120; 253 W.A.C. 120 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 23]. R. v. Nova Scotia Pharmaceutical Society, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 606; 139 N.R. 241; 114 N.S.R.(2d) 9......
-
Supreme Court of Canada Endorses A New Approach to Self-Represented Litigants.
...or unwillingness to retain counsel. If they seek free lunch, they should not complain of the size of the helpings" (Broda v Broda, 2001 ABCA 151 para However, Courts must, and are beginning to, adapt and develop tools to ensure that self-represented litigants have the help they need to pres......