Judicial Bias at the Court of Appeal 2007
Justice Charron
For Justice Charron, 46 family cases were available from the Court of Appeal., and 36 of them had data on cost penalties. The cases and their outcomes can be found in Appendix A3. A summary of the decisions is as follows
|
Appellant |
Custody |
Access |
Mobility |
Spousal Support |
Child Support |
Equalization |
Other |
Costs |
|
Number of Males |
3 |
3 |
0 |
15 |
11 |
8 |
18 |
36 |
|
Number of Male Wins |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
2 |
2 |
5 |
|
Appellant |
Custody |
Access |
Mobility |
Spousal Support |
Child Support |
Equalization |
Other |
Costs |
|
Number of Females |
1 |
0 |
1 |
4 |
1 |
2 |
7 |
36 |
|
Number of Female Wins |
1 |
0 |
1 |
3 |
1 |
2 |
5 |
29 |
Summarized in percentage terms
|
Appellant |
Custody |
Access |
Mobility |
Spousal Support |
Child Support |
Equalization |
Other |
Costs |
|
% Chance of Male Win |
0.0 |
0.0 |
NA |
6.7 |
0.0 |
25.0 |
11.1 |
13.9 |
|
% Chance of Female Win |
100.0 |
NA |
100.0 |
75.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
71.4 |
80.6 |
It can be concluded that on a family issue a woman has a (42/52 x 100) 80.7 % chance of winning, and a man has a (10/94 x 100) 10.6 % chance of winning when appearing before a Court of Appeal panel with Justice Charron on it. Success as decided by cost penalties assigned was 13.9 % in favor of men, 80.6 % in favor of females and divided 5.5 % of the time.
For Justice Charron, 7 family cases were available from the Supreme Court of Canada., and all of them had data on cost penalties. The cases and their outcomes can be found in Appendix B3. A summary of the decisions is as follows
|
Appellant |
Custody |
Access |
Mobility |
Spousal Support |
Child Support |
Equalization |
Other |
Costs |
|
Number of Males |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
7 |
|
Number of Male Wins |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
|
Appellant |
Custody |
Access |
Mobility |
Spousal Support |
Child Support |
Equalization |
Other |
Costs |
|
Number of Females |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
0 |
1 |
7 |
|
Number of Female Wins |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
3 |
Summarized in percentage terms
|
Appellant |
Custody |
Access |
Mobility |
Spousal Support |
Child Support |
Equalization |
Other |
Costs |
|
% Chance of Male Win |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
0.0 |
NA |
NA |
28.6 |
|
% Chance of Female Win |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
33.3 |
NA |
100.0 |
42.8 |
When costs of the appeal are excluded, women have a (2/4 x 100) 50 % chance of winning and men have a (0/3 x 100) 0.0 % chance of winning when appearing before a Supreme Court panel with Justice Charron.
Appendix A
Sex of Lawyer M = Male F = Female Sr = Self Represented
(m) = Hired by the Man (f) = Hired by the woman
Cost Penalty (w) Woman Wins (m) = Man Wins nc = No Costs
res = Reserved for Trial
Sex of Appellant M = Man W = Woman
Grounds (W) = Win C = Custody M = Mobility CS = Child Support
of Appeal
or Cross (L) = Lose A = Access O = Other SS = Spousal Support
Appeal
EQ = Equalization
Panel Judge 1 or 2 Alb = Abella JA Fld = Feldman JA Char = Charron JA
Sim = Simmons JA Wlr = Weiler JA Lng = Lang JA
McM = McMurtry former CJO OCnr = O’Connor DCJO
Gdge = Goudge JA Arm = Arstrong JA Brn = Borin JA
Mcfd = Macfarland JA Macp = Macphearson JA Gil = Gillese JA
Crnk = Cronk JA Catz = Catzman JA Mold = Moldaver JA
Lbse = Labrosse JA Shrp = Sharp JA Rsbg = Rosenberg JA
Lask = Laskin JA Blr = Blair JA Jur = Juriansz JA
Roul = Rouleau JA Kvr = Kriever JA Osb = Osbourne JA
Mord = Morden JA Ast = Austin JA Crty = Carthy JA
Appendix A3 — Court of Appeal Cases Examined for Justice Charron
|
Sex of Lawyer ( wining / losing) |
Cost Penalty (sex of wining appellant) |
|
|
Sex. of appellant |
Grounds of Appeal . ( Win/Lose ) |
Cross. Appeal. (Win / Lose ) |
Panel Judge . 1 |
Panel Judge . 2 |
|
|
|
1996 |
Boers v. Boers (December 3) |
M |
(L) CS, SS, O |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1996 |
Campbell v. Campbell (February 15) |
M |
(L) CS, SS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1996 |
Duma v Mathews (December 8) |
M |
(L) A, CS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1996 |
Taylor v. McWhirter (December 2) |
M |
(L) A |
|
|
|
|
M v m |
nc |
1996 |
Williams v. Ellul (February 2) |
M |
.(L) A |
|
Lask |
|
|
M v m |
(w) |
1996 |
Woodman v. Deremo (July 23) |
M |
(L) SS, EQ |
|
Abl |
Lask |
|
M v m |
(w) 2500 |
1996 |
Kostello v Kostello (December 4) |
W |
(W) O |
|
Lask |
Crty |
|
M v f |
(w) |
1997 |
Best v. Best (October 3) |
M |
(L) SS, EQ, O |
|
Drty |
Find |
|
|
|
1997 |
Layzell v. Layzell (December 8) |
M |
(L) C |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1997 |
Munro v. Munro (October 17) |
M |
(W) O (L) SS |
|
|
|
|
F v f |
|
1997 |
Therrien – Cliché v Cliché (April 1) |
M |
(L) O |
|
Wlr |
Lbse |
|
F v m |
(w) |
1997 |
Rarie v Rarie |
M |
(W) EQ |
|
Lask |
Lbse |
|
F v m |
(w) |
1998 |
Choquette v. Choquette (July 28) |
M |
(L) SS |
|
Gdge |
Rsbg |
|
F v m |
(w) |
1998 |
Daoust v Leboeuf (January 14) |
M |
(L) C |
(W)CS, O (L)SS |
Shrpe |
Lbse |
|
M v m |
(w) |
1998 |
Francis v. Baker (March 10) |
M |
(L) CS, SS, O |
|
Abl |
Ast |
|
F v m |
|
1998 |
Pollastro Pollastro (November 16) |
W |
(W) M |
|
|
|
|
F v m |
(w) |
1999 |
Bogue v Bogue (November 16) |
M |
(L) SS, O |
|
Mcph |
Rsbg |
|
|
|
1999 |
Irmie v Irmie (October 18) |
M |
(W) SS |
|
|
|
|
Sr v m (m) |
nc |
1999 |
Lee v. Lee (August 5) |
M |
(L) CS |
|
Feld |
Ocnr |
|
|
(w) 2000 |
1999 |
Otterbein v Otterbein (Aug 6) |
W |
(W) SS |
|
Feld |
Ocnr |
|
M n m |
(w) |
1999 |
Pope v. Pope (February 3) |
M |
(L) SS, EQ |
|
Mold |
Osbn |
|
M v m |
(w) 2000 c |
1999 |
Kardish v Kardish (Mar 1 1999) |
W |
(W) O |
|
Feld |
Lbse |
|
F v sr |
(w) |
1999 |
Bennet v Bennet (June 16) |
M |
(L) O |
|
Wlr |
Brke |
|
M v f |
(w) 4000 |
1999 |
Shortman v Shortman (Aug 6) |
M |
(L) SS EQ O |
|
Char |
Ocnr |
|
M v sr |
(w) |
2000 |
Lachapelle v. Lachapelle (November 15) |
M |
. (L) C, CS, EQ, O |
|
Shrp |
Lbse |
|
M v m |
|
2000 |
Rhys – Jones v Rhys – Jones (April 20) |
W |
(W) SS |
|
Rsbg |
Crty |
|
M v m |
(w) |
2001 |
Coathup v Coathup (May 18) |
M |
(L) O |
|
Crty |
Find |
|
M v m |
(w) |
2001 |
Hutchinson v Hutchinson ( January 15) |
W |
(W) EQ |
|
Lasl |
Wlr |
|
F v m |
(w) |
2001 |
Lamarche v Crevier (November 9) |
M |
(W)EQ (L)CS, SS |
|
Wlr |
Lbse |
|
F v f |
(w) |
2001 |
Marson v. Marson (May 15) |
M |
(L) CS, O |
|
Gdge |
Rsbg |
|
M v m |
(m) |
2001 |
Rosien v. McCulloch (May 8) |
W |
.(L) O |
|
Crty |
Find |
|
M v m |
(w) |
2001 |
Stanghi v. Stanghi (May 24) |
M |
(L) CS, SS |
|
Gdge |
Rsbg |
|
M v m |
(m) |
2001 |
Wamsley v Wamsley (February 14) |
M |
(W) EQ |
|
Feld |
Mord |
|
M v m |
(w) |
2001 |
Milla v Milla (Mar 19) |
M |
(L) O |
|
Alb |
Shrp |
|
M v m |
(w) 1000 |
2001 |
Hagen v Hagen (February 5) |
M |
(L) O |
|
McM |
Osbn |
|
F v m |
(m) |
2001 |
Chertow v Chertow (May 10) |
M |
(L) O |
|
Crty |
Find |
|
F v M |
(w) |
2001 |
Bolt v Bolt (April 4) |
M |
(L) O |
(W) O |
Gdge |
Rsbg |
|
M v m |
(m) 7500 |
2002 |
Latcham v Latcham (May 29) |
W |
(L) O |
|
Lask |
McM |
|
F v m |
nc |
2002 |
Parks v. Barnes (March 7) |
W |
(W) C |
|
McM |
Gdge |
|
M v m |
(w) 4500 |
2002 |
Scherer v Scherer (February 18) |
W |
(W) O |
|
McM |
Catz |
|
M v m |
(w) 4500 |
2002 |
Sleiman v. Sleiman (May 7) |
M |
(W) O |
|
Lask |
McM |
|
M v m |
(w) 12000 |
2002 |
Sodhi v. Sodhi (June 19) |
M |
(L) CS, SS |
(W) M |
McM |
Mold |
|
F v m |
(w) |
2002 |
Wright v Zavier (March 26) |
M |
(L) CS |
|
Feld, Sim |
Shrp, Crty |
|
M v m |
(w) 6411 |
2002 |
Ball v Ball (May 7 ) |
M |
(L) O |
|
Lask |
McM |
|
M v F |
(w) 15000 |
2003 |
Farrar v. Farrar (January 27) |
W |
(W) SS, EQ, O |
|
Abl |
Catz |
|
M v m |
(m) 2500 |
2003 |
Sangster v. Sangster (January 15) |
M |
(W) O |
|
Gil |
Lbse |
|
F v m |
(w) |
2003 |
Tauber v. Tauber (March 31) |
M |
(L) SS |
|
Char |
Catz |
|
F v m |
(w) 8000 |
2004 |
Gholizadeh v Shadou (June 29) |
M |
(L) SS, O |
|
Lask |
Char |
Appendix B3 — Supreme Court Cases Examined for Justice Charron
|
|
|
sex |
win ...lose
|
description |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
2007-02-09 Dickie v. Dickie, 2007 SCC 8 (CanLII) |
w |
w |
Contempt, security, man not in country, paid over 1 million in support, imprisoned for 45 days for stopping paying, wife gets costs |
|
2 |
2006-06-21 Leskun v. Leskun, [2006] 1 S.C.R. 920, 2006 SCC 25 (CanLII) |
m |
l |
Child support, man is unemployed and must pay $ 2250 per month, self represented respondent wife appointed amicus curiae, no costs |
|
3 |
2006-07-31 D.B.S. v. S.R.G.; L.J.W. v. T.A.R.; Henry v. Henry; Hiemstra v. Hiemstra, [2006] 2 S.C.R. 231, 2006 SCC 37 (CanLII) |
m, m, w, w |
l |
Retroactive child support, allowed in 2 cases disallowed in 2 cases, all 4 cases lose, court affirms power to make retroactive awards, costs on all cases |
|
4 |
2005-11-10 Contino v. Leonelli-Contino, [2005] 3 S.C.R. 217, 2005 SCC 63 (CanLII) |
w |
w |
Court of Appeal sets off table child support, wife appeals, no costs |