2018 QCCA 902, 2018 QCCA 902

Nwabue c. McGill University 2018 QCCA 902 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No: 500-09-027476-183 (500-17-098123-170, 500-17-100756-173) DATE: May 30, 2018 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE FRANÇOIS DOYON, J.A. ROBERT M. MAINVILLE, J.A. JOCELYN F. RANCOURT, J.A. ROGERS NWABUE APPLICANT — Plaintiff v. MCGILL UNIVERSITY ET AL. MCGILL UNIVERSITY AS SUSAN CAMPBELL ET AL. RESPONDENTS — Defendants JUDGMENT [ 1 ] The applicant seeks leave to appeal from a judgment rendered on March 27, 2018 by the Honourable Gary D.D.

Morrison of the Superior Court, District of Montreal, declining to recuse himself from the litigation and dismissing the Plaintiff’s Application for Recusation of the Judge . [ 2 ] The test for recusation is well known and is the following: the apprehension of bias must be a reasonable one, held by reasonable and right minded persons, applying themselves to the question and obtaining thereon the required information; in other words, what would an informed person, viewing the matter realistically and practically – and having thought the matter through – conclude?

Would this person think that it is more likely than not that the judge, whether consciously or unconsciously, would not decide the matter fairly. It is worth noting that this test refers to an apprehension of bias that rests on serious grounds, in light of the strong presumption of judicial impartiality. In this respect, the grounds for apprehension of bias must be substantial. Moreover, the application of the test remains highly fact-specific.

This test has consistently been endorsed by the Supreme Court of Canada [1] . [ 3 ] The applicant has failed to convince the Court that he satisfies this test even on a prima facie basis. The facts raised in support of the recusation of Morrison, J.S.C. are either ill-founded or irrelevant.

In these circumstances, the proposed appeal is bound to fail should leave be granted. [ 4 ] Since leave to appeal will be denied, there is no need to consider the applicant’s numerous other applications which are in the nature of safeguard orders. [ 5 ] Nor, in the circumstances, is it necessary to consider the waiver of appeal court tariffs sought by the applicant, though we would have denied it had we granted leave to appeal.

The only evidence submitted by the applicant to support his claim of impecuniosity are bald statements accompanied by a form letter dated November 1, 2017 purporting to confirm that he has been receiving last-resort financial assistance since July 3, 2017. This is insufficient. Material evidence must be submitte d to support such a claim, including complete and clear financial information presented in a comprehensible format.

Tax returns, bank statements, lists of assets, and (where possible) financial statements should be submitted and addressed as well as evidence of the impracticability of borrowing from a third party or of accessing family and community resources. [ 6 ] The applicant presents no such evidence. This is particularly worrisome in this case since the applicant states being qualified as a medical physician with specialty training and certification in obstetrics and gynecology as well as holding a master’s degree in human embryology and andrology.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 7 ] DISMISSES the application for leave to appeal and DENIES leave to appeal the judgment rendered on March 27, 2018 by the Honourable Gary D.D. Morrison of the Superior Court, District of Montreal.

FRANÇOIS DOYON, J.A. ROBERT M. MAINVILLE, J.A. JOCELYN F. RANCOURT, J.A. Rogers Nwabue In person Mtre Kristian Brabander Mtre Gabrielle Baracat McCARTHY TETRAULT For the respondents Date of hearing: May 28, 2018