The test was first stated in Committee for Justice and Liberty v. Canada (National Energy Board), [1978] 1 S.C.R.
"It was further developed in:[1] “A reasonable apprehension of bias may be raised where an informed person, viewing the matter realistically and practically and having thought the matter through, would think it more likely than not that the decision maker would unconsciously or consciously decide the issue unfairly [emphasis added].”Further:[2] "16.
I will underline the words I think are wrong in the sentence that contains them:'... Would he think that it is more likely than not that [the decision-maker], whether consciously or unconsciously, would not decide fairly.
ed., (Carswell, Toronto: 1994), the authors state at p. 365:…common sense says that the delegate (or another party) can lead evidence to contradict that introduced by the applicant for the judicial review.
)), Watt J. was dealing with the apprehension of bias in order to succeed in a complaint of jurisdictional error.
32 he wrote:It is trite that every allegation that judicial conduct gives rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias falls to be decided upon its own facts.
It follows that a parade of authorities, parsing precedent in vain search of factual equivalents or reasonable facsimiles, is not to the purpose.
"The dictionary definition of apprehension, outside of the Canadian legal context, provides two distinct meanings: anxiety about something, or the perception or grasp of something.