Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Motion brought by a party to recuse the judge on grounds of alleged reasonable apprehension of bias.

• Allegations included racially insensitive and ad hominem remarks during previous hearings.

• Central dispute involved enforcement of a contingency fee agreement between a former lawyer and client, linked to proceeds of a business on reserve land.

• Application of sections 29 and 89 of the Indian Act in determining enforceability of claims against on-reserve business assets.

• Long-standing litigation involving multiple proceedings, appeals, and decisions from both trial and appellate courts.

• Motion to recuse dismissed for lack of timely action and insufficient evidentiary basis, with costs awarded against the moving party.

Background and procedural history

The dispute arises from a complex and protracted litigation between Glenn Bogue, a former lawyer, and Andrew Clifford Miracle, his former client. Bogue had represented Miracle in arbitration against Miracle’s son concerning the ownership and profits of an on-reserve business known as “Smokin’ Joes.” The arbitration resulted in a substantial award in Miracle’s favour, exceeding $11 million. Bogue claims he acted under a contingency fee agreement entitling him to 25% of the award.

Despite the award, Miracle did not collect the funds directly but acquired full ownership of the business. Meanwhile, Bogue remained largely unpaid, prompting him to seek various enforcement remedies, including the appointment of a receiver over the business assets. The proceedings were further complicated by the bankruptcy of Miracle’s son, whose estate became part of the litigation framework.

In 2019, the court appointed a receiver. The appointment was challenged by Miracle on grounds that it violated the protections under the Indian Act, which restrict enforcement of judgments against property situated on a reserve unless certain exceptions apply. This issue became the subject of multiple appellate decisions. While the lower court initially upheld the receivership based on the "commercial mainstream" exception under s. 89 of the Indian Act, the Ontario Court of Appeal ultimately reversed that finding in 2022, concluding that Bogue’s receivership claim could not prevail due to his status as a non-Indian.

Recusal motion and allegations of bias

The present decision addresses a motion brought by Miracle seeking the recusal of Justice Mew, who had been assigned case management responsibilities for related matters. Miracle alleged that the judge’s continued involvement created a reasonable apprehension of bias. The allegations centered on purported derogatory comments made during a hearing in February 2024, including alleged racist remarks and characterization of Miracle as a liar. Additional concerns were raised about how motions had been structured and how prior judicial findings had been selectively adopted.

Justice Mew found that the most serious allegations were unsupported. Transcripts confirmed that the offensive remarks alleged by Miracle and his spouse had not been made. The judge also noted that no audio or transcripts were requested by Miracle or his counsel at the time, and the affidavits asserting the remarks were made 17 months after the event. Other statements attributed to the judge were determined to be either taken out of context or not made at all.

Legal standards applied

The decision reaffirmed the legal test for reasonable apprehension of bias, as articulated in Committee for Justice and Liberty v. National Energy Board, and emphasized the need for substantial grounds. The court reiterated that the perception of bias must be assessed from the standpoint of a reasonable and informed person. In this case, the threshold was not met.

Justice Mew also emphasized that an objection based on bias must be raised promptly. Miracle failed to raise his concerns until July 2025, despite the alleged remarks being made in February 2024. This delay, combined with the lack of substantive support, led the judge to conclude that the motion was not made in good faith.

Outcome and costs

The recusal motion was dismissed in its entirety. The judge ruled that the allegations did not support a finding of bias and that the motion appeared to be a tactical attempt to disqualify a judge based on adverse rulings rather than actual misconduct.

Costs were awarded against Miracle in the amount of $12,500. The court found the motion to be vexatious and abusive, citing Miracle’s pattern of attempting to remove judges whose decisions he disfavoured. Although Bogue sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis, the amount awarded was reduced in light of proportionality.

The decision affirms that judicial decisions, even when unfavorable to a party, do not constitute bias unless supported by clear and timely evidence. It also underlines the need for litigants to raise such concerns responsibly and within appropriate procedural timelines.