Register for free to upload content and post comments

A user-driven online community and resource library for ethics teachers, scholars, and practitioners worldwide.

Comparative Judicial Disqualification

Submitted by Philip Bryden on Mon, 07/07/2014 - 09:07
Long title
Empirical and Comparative Approaches to Judicial Disqualification: The Case for Limited-Scope Statutory Frameworks
Author(s)
Hughes, Jula and Bryden, Philip
Author(s)' contact information
Dr. Jula Hughes, Faculty of Law, University of New Brunswick

Professor Philip Bryden, Faculty of Law, University of Alberta
Conference title
ILEC VI
Conference location
City University London
Country
United Kingdom
Year
2014
Select the option that describes the rights you hold in the attached content
I do not hold complete rights to all intellectual property in the attached content, but have permission from all people or entities who do hold rights in the attached content to post it on the Forum website and to grant the license, if any, that I have chosen below.
Select a license for the attached content
"Download Only": I give permission for other users to download the attached content, as long as they do not copy, distribute, repost it on the web, or alter the work in any way. (post-only permission)
Abstract
The attached paper and presentation take an empirical and comparative approach to the common law governing judicial disqualification. The authors rely on their empirical research involving Canadian provincial court judges to make the case that judges have difficulty applying the common law "reasonable apprehension of bias" test in common but analytically marginal situations. They then draw on statutory schemes for judicial disqualification in the United States and Germany to argue that there are situations in which limited-scope statutory regimes for judicial disqualification would be of assistance to judges and litigants in Canada and other common law jurisdictions.
Other Topics