this post was submitted on 23 Oct 2023
136 points (98.6% liked)

Canada

10248 readers
677 users here now

What's going on Canada?

Related Communities

🍁 Meta

🗺️ Provinces / Territories

🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.

🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer

💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.

💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales

🗣️ Politics

🍁 Social / Culture

Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
otter@lemmy.ca
mp3@lemmy.ca
otter@piefed.ca
mp3@piefed.ca
136
Judge who ruled for N.B. landlord in rent-reduction case owns apartment building (www.cbc.ca)
submitted 2 years ago by sik0fewl@kbin.social to c/canada@lemmy.ca
13 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

New Brunswick Court of King's Bench Justice Kathryn Gregory, who sided with a landlord in a case involving the way provincial tenancy officers have been phasing-in large rent increases, owns an apartment building.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] nyan@lemmy.cafe 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I don't necessarily expect a code of ethics to cover something like this (they do cover direct conflicts of interest—if the judge were related to the landlord, or in business with them, they would be expected to recuse themselves, for instance). This is a situation where the judge may benefit from the precedent but not the legal ruling itself, and that's something that a code of ethics might not catch even if it's being enforced correctly.

In this case, either there is no such article in whatever codes of ethics or conduct this judge is required to follow, or it isn't being enforced, and so might as well not exist.

[–] OminousOrange@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

I think it should be, especially in the legal profession where it's their job to think of these sorts of circumstances. As the legal professionals quoted in the article mention, the judge should've informed all parties of their ownership of a significant asset that could be impacted by the ruling (ie perceived conflict of interest), and recuse themselves if any party objects to that.

As an engineer, we have a similar code that says we must notify any parties of potential or perceived conflicts of interest before starting work or at the first instance where it becomes known to the engineer. As such, it would be unethical to recommend developing land that I just happen to own, unless I clearly state that I own the land with potential to be developed before working on the project, and make clear justification of why that land is favourable to other locations. Even then, I might excuse myself from the project to completely avoid that potential conflict.

I think this judge's actions are clearly unethical, and the ruling shouldn't stand unless another judge without conflict of interest rules the same.

[–] nyan@lemmy.cafe 4 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Oh, I very much agree that the judge has a clear conflict of interest here and shouldn't have been the one to hear the case. It's just that I'm also unsurprised that this wasn't caught. Judges have an advantage over engineers in getting away with stuff in that it's very unusual for a judge's mistake in Canada in the present day to cause someone to die.

[–] OminousOrange@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 years ago

Agreed, but non-self reported ethics violations aren't often caught until after the decisions are made. It'd be quite tedious to background check every aspect of cases to make sure the judges and legal representatives have no potential conflicts. It is upon the individuals to do such a thing, but as in this case, that duty seems to be occasionally overlooked, whether nefarious or not.