Stewart v. Canadian Broadcasting Corp. et al., (1996) 56 O.T.C. 278 (GD)

• Judge: J. Macdonald, J.
• Court: Ontario Court of Justice General Division (Canada)
• Case Date: December 17, 1996
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (1996), 56 O.T.C. 278 (GD)

Stewart v. CBC (1996), 56 O.T.C. 278 (GD)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1998] O.T.C. TBEd. MR.083

Robert C. Stewart (plaintiff) v. Scales of Justice Enterprises Inc., and Edward L. Greenspan and Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (defendants)

(File No. 92 CQ 25041)

Indexed As: Stewart v. Canadian Broadcasting Corp. et al.

Ontario Court of Justice

General Division

Toronto

J. Macdonald, J.

December 17, 1996.

Summary:

While his decision was under reserve and he was deliberating, the trial judge wrote to counsel for the parties requesting further submissions respecting aspects of the evi­dence at trial which had not been addressed in argument and which appeared important to his deliberations. The applicants (defen­dants) brought mistrial motions arguing that the letter gave rise to a reasonable appre­hen­sion of bias and resulted in a loss of jurisdic­tion. Actual bias was not alleged. In support of their position, the applicants also raised again the grounds for an earlier mis­trial motion that had been dismissed.

The Ontario Court (General Division) held that the applicants were entitled to argue the totality of the circumstances (i.e., including the grounds for the earlier motion). The court dismissed the motions.

Editor's Note: For other decisions in this case see 32 O.T.C. 321 and 38 O.T.C. 345.

Courts - Topic 691

Judges - Disqualification - Bias - Rea­son­able apprehension of bias - See para­graphs 1 to 18.

Practice - Topic 5084

Conduct of trial - Mistrials - Bias - Rea­sonable apprehension of bias - See para­graphs 1 to 18.

Cases Noticed:

Committee for Justice and Liberty Foun­da­tion et al. v. National Energy Board et al., [1978] 1 S.C.R. 369; 9 N.R. 115; 68 D.L.R.(3d) 716, appld. [para. 3].

Jones v. National Coal Board, [1957] 2 Q.B. 55 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

Phillips v. Ford Motor Co. of Canada, [1971] 2 O.R. 637 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

Majcenic v. Natale, [1968] 1 O.R. 189 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

Geller v. Brisseau et al., [1979] 6 W.W.R. 416; 31 N.R. 125; 20 A.R. 317; 29 N.B.R.(2d) 517; 66 A.P.R. 517; 25 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 221; 68 A.P.R. 221; 36 N.S.R.(2d) 689; 64 A.P.R. 689 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

Enoch and Zaretzky, Bock & Co., Re, [1910] 1 K.B. 327 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

Baker v. Hutchinson et al. (1976), 13 O.R.(2d) 591 (C.A.), dist. [para. 8].

J.M.W. Recycling Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General) (1982), 133 D.L.R.(3d) 363 (Ont. C.A.), dist. [para. 8].

Griffin v. Murnaghan et al. (1994), 70 O.A.C. 236; 113 D.L.R.(4th) 63 (C.A.), dist. [para. 8].

Shoppers Mortgage and Loan Corp. v. Health First Wellington Square Ltd. et al. (1995), 80 O.A.C. 346; 23 O.R.(3d) 362 (C.A.), dist. [para. 8].

R. v. Osolin, [1993] 4 S.C.R. 595; 162 N.R. 1; 38 B.C.A.C. 81; 62 W.A.C. 81; 86 C.C.C.(3d) 481; 109 D.L.R.(4th) 478; 26 C.R.(4th) 1; 19 C.R.R.(2d) 93, refd to. [para. 11].

Halton Community Credit Union Ltd. v. ICL Computers Ltd. and Cass (1985), 8 O.A.C. 369; 1 C.P.C.(2d) 24 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 12].

R. v. Brouillard, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 39; 57 N.R. 168; 17 C.C.C.(3d) 193; 44 C.R.(3d) 124; 16 D.L.R.(4th) 447, refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Torbiak (1974), 18 C.C.C.(2d) 229; 26 C.R.N.S. 108 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 15].

Cronk v. Canadian General Insurance Co. (1995), 85 O.A.C. 54; 25 O.R.(3d) 505 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].

Guastelluccia v. Scott et al. (1978), 20 O.R.(2d) 241 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 17].

Assie v. Saskatchewan Telecommunica­tions (1978), 90 D.L.R.(3d) 410 (Sask. C.A.), refd to. [para. 17].

Pacific Wash-a-Matic Ltd. v. Booth (R.O.) Holdings Ltd. (1979), 105 D.L.R.(3d) 323 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 17].

Counsel:

Barry B. Swadron, Q.C., for the plain­tiff/respondent;

Harvey Strosberg, Q.C., and D.H. Jack, for the defendants/applicants.

These motions were heard by J. Mac­donald, J., of the Ontario Court (General Division), who gave judgment on December 17, 1996 and released the following reasons on February 26, 1998.