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.
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.
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.
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.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !canada@lemmy.ca
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.
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.
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.