By Gudrun Schultz
OTTAWA, Ontario, January 25, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A complaint against Ontario Chief Justice McMurtry over his conduct during the pivotal same-sex marriage case of 2003 was rejected by the Canadian Judicial Council, REAL Women of Canada reported yesterday in a public statement.
REAL Women submitted the complaint to the council after it was revealed that Justice McMurtry’s daughter was living in a lesbian relationship at the time of his handling of the case. As well, photographs of the Chief Justice at a party with two of the litigants in the case, taken two weeks after the court’s decision, indicated an inappropriate personal involvement on the part of McMurtry, REAL Women said.
REAL Women argued that the circumstances of McMurtry’s daughter should have led him to recuse himself from the case under conflict of interest.
The Council, however, concluded that there was no basis to support that view. In the Judicial Council’s letter to REAL Women dated December 19, 2006, the Council claimed:
“… the sexual orientation of a judge’s children, and indeed the fact that a judge’s children are married or living in a common law relationship are not, in Chief Justice Scott’s view, indicative of any bias on the part of a judge.”
The council’s decision appears to contradict the guidelines established by the CJC in its document, “Ethical Principles for Judges,” REAL Women pointed out, which state:
“Judges should disqualify themselves in any case in which they believe that a reasonable, fair minded and informed person would have a reasoned suspicion of conflict of interest between a judge’s personal interest (or that of a judge’s immediate family or close friends or associates) and a judge’s duty.”
“It seems clear that the Judicial Council chose to ignore its own guidelines in order to protect Chief Justice McMurtry,” REAL Women stated.
“The decision of the Canadian Judicial Council on the complaint against Chief Justice McMurtry indicates that the purpose of the Canadian Judicial Council is not to protect the public from the judges, but rather to protect the judges from the public. It also maintains the myth that judges are above politics, impartial and objective. Such is not necessarily the case.”
The CJC decision dismissed the suggestion of misconduct in Justice McMurtry’s social involvement with litigants in the case, saying his refusal to have been photographed with the litigants could have been seen as “mean-spirited or worse.”
See previous LifeSiteNews coverage:
Not Recusing Himself For Conflict, Activist Judge Pushes Way Into Three Parent Case
https://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2006/oct/06102403.html
Judge Who Gave Canada Homosexual “Marriage” Had Conflict of Interest Says Women’s Rights Group
https://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2006/jul/06071907.html