The complainant alleged that a judge from the Superior Court personally and professionally libelled and defamed the complainant in certain paragraphs of a Costs Endorsement.

webid-20150000

The complainant alleged that a judge from the Superior Court personally and professionally libelled and defamed the complainant in certain paragraphs of a Costs Endorsement. He felt that none of the findings were relevant to the matter of costs or any aspect of the action, and was upset that this information could now be fully accessed on the internet by the whole world. As well, the judge allegedly launched an attack on the complainant’s personal and professional competence and integrity, and showed bias. The complainant stated that the judge had caused a major and extremely problematic delay in the finalization of the matter. However, a review of the documents provided show that the judge delivered his judgment within the recommended six months. Therefore, the allegation was without merit.

The Council concluded that the complainant’s letter simply showed that he disagreed with the factual and legal conclusions, and that the allegations of bias were found to be based on belief and personal opinion. The matter was closed

Back