We received a complaint from a party to two proceedings heard by an officer. The complaint alleged that the Officer (amongst other things) failed to act impartially. In support, the complainant alleged that the Officer made three comments that gave unwarranted deference to the other party because of their profession and thus gave rise to an apprehension of bias.

We listened to the audio recording of the hearing and confirmed three instances where the Officer commented concerning the other party’s profession. For example, early in the hearing, the Officer said, ‘Now, am I correct in thinking one of these gentlemen is actually a medical practitioner?’ The following exchange took place:

OTHER PARTY: ‘I’m a doctor, Your Honour.’

OFFICER: ‘All right, I should be calling you Dr [Other Party].’

OTHER PARTY: ‘In fact, I’m a surgeon, so you can call me Mr [Other Party].’

OFFICER: ‘A friend’s daughter has just qualified in surgery recently, an extremely clever girl, and she elected to stay Dr and not Ms.’

We were satisfied that a reasonable community member would likely perceive that the Officer asked the questions to clarify what form of address they should use throughout the hearing. The exchange could not reasonably be perceived as showing favouritism to the other party.

Further, the second and third comments referring to the other party’s profession were made in the context of the Officer emphasising the contested nature of the proceedings and expressing ‘measured displeasure’ at the manner in which they had been conducted. We
found they were not inappropriate because they were a legitimate expression of the Officer’s judicial function.

The complaint was dismissed. We were not satisfied that the Officer’s conduct infringed the standards of conduct generally expected of judicial officers.

The risk of familiarity being perceived as bias or impartiality