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.
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 for tenants, owns a five-unit apartment building in Fredericton, property records show.
Gregory ruled that decision was unfair to the landlord because the awarding of a phased-in rent increase is discretionary, not automatic, according to her interpretation of the legislation that created the policy.
No one has publicly questioned the substance of Gregory’s decision or reasoning but legal experts say her ruling on an issue that her own apartment building could be subject to at some point is problematic.
Trevor Farrow, dean of law at Osgoode Hall in Toronto, said it is important for judges to be viewed by the public as having no personal interest or entanglement in any case they handle.
Beyond the propriety of owning an apartment building, Bryden, Farrow and Hughes all say it would have been important for Justice Gregory to disclose her status as a landlord to alert parties in the case to a potential conflict.
Richard Devlin, a professor at Dalhousie’s Schulich School of Law, said it is not certain that Justice Gregory acted improperly by hearing and ruling on the issue of how the province regulates rent increases by landlords but it is not clear her conduct was free of trouble, either.
The original article contains 1,052 words, the summary contains 228 words. Saved 78%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
These days, anybody with a good enough income will own rental property. People know that real estate is the best investment you can do in Canada to protect your hard earned money from inflation. Furthermore, if you rent it, it practically pays itself.
So I’m not the last bit surprised that everyone from doctors, lawyers, real estate agents, judges and even MPs all own investment rental properties.
NB literally does not have tenants’ rights. Literally nothing. Your landlord can do essentially anything they want to you. The only person who can challenge them is the rentalsman, and they will 99% of the time side with the leeches.
I wish there was a way to force the legal system to be more careful about this kind of indirect conflict of interest.
Of course, if anyone ever pulls that off, I will expect to see pigs flying past in formation outside my window, 'cause teaching farm animals to hang glide is clearly easier.
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.
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
This is the best summary I could come up with:
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 for tenants, owns a five-unit apartment building in Fredericton, property records show.
Gregory ruled that decision was unfair to the landlord because the awarding of a phased-in rent increase is discretionary, not automatic, according to her interpretation of the legislation that created the policy.
No one has publicly questioned the substance of Gregory’s decision or reasoning but legal experts say her ruling on an issue that her own apartment building could be subject to at some point is problematic.
Trevor Farrow, dean of law at Osgoode Hall in Toronto, said it is important for judges to be viewed by the public as having no personal interest or entanglement in any case they handle.
Beyond the propriety of owning an apartment building, Bryden, Farrow and Hughes all say it would have been important for Justice Gregory to disclose her status as a landlord to alert parties in the case to a potential conflict.
Richard Devlin, a professor at Dalhousie’s Schulich School of Law, said it is not certain that Justice Gregory acted improperly by hearing and ruling on the issue of how the province regulates rent increases by landlords but it is not clear her conduct was free of trouble, either.
The original article contains 1,052 words, the summary contains 228 words. Saved 78%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
These days, anybody with a good enough income will own rental property. People know that real estate is the best investment you can do in Canada to protect your hard earned money from inflation. Furthermore, if you rent it, it practically pays itself.
So I’m not the last bit surprised that everyone from doctors, lawyers, real estate agents, judges and even MPs all own investment rental properties.
NB literally does not have tenants’ rights. Literally nothing. Your landlord can do essentially anything they want to you. The only person who can challenge them is the rentalsman, and they will 99% of the time side with the leeches.
Why wasn’t this conflict of interest discovered before the case went to court?
Guess that’s why they called it the ol’ landed gentry, eh?
heil spez!
I wish there was a way to force the legal system to be more careful about this kind of indirect conflict of interest.
Of course, if anyone ever pulls that off, I will expect to see pigs flying past in formation outside my window, 'cause teaching farm animals to hang glide is clearly easier.
Like a Code of Ethics?
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.
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.
I don’t think they’ll be writing class consciousness into a code of ethics anytime soon, unfortunately.