Reading R. Shach, I can't help noticing how much his idea of honest politics draws from the
standard of judicial impartiality that the Talmudic tradition insists upon.
In being open to discussion, however, the judiciary will remain steadfast in protecting the essential elements of judicial independence, as the precursor and
guardian of judicial impartiality.
But, while the mediation of courts is based upon the
principle of judicial impartiality, disinterestedness, and fairness pervading the whole system of judicature, so that courts may as near as possible be above suspicion, there is, on the other side, an important issue at stake: that is, that causes may not be unfairly prejudiced, unduly delayed, or discontent created through unfounded charges of prejudice or unfairness made against the judge in the trial of a cause...
It is a complaint not about sufficiency, but about process, and stands to be resolved on the basis of the core analysis in Teskey [R. v. Teskey, 2007 SCC 25, [2007] 2 S.C.R. 267]-- whether the
presumption of judicial impartiality has been rebutted.
Retired judges who return to court as counsel pose a serious threat to the
perception of judicial impartiality, an issue that recently caught the attention of the Law Society of Upper Canada.
But lack of originality and failure to attribute sources do not in themselves rebut the presumption
of judicial impartiality and integrity.
The rule of law rests of the presumption
of judicial impartiality.