FAZARRI & HSIAO

In the matter of *Fazarri & Hsiao*, heard before Cronin J, the wife sought the recusal of the judge on the grounds of apprehended bias. This apprehension arose from the fact that the judge's associate shared the same name as the husband's former wife, leading the wife to suspect a connection. Additionally, the wife alleged apprehended bias stemming from discussions the judge had with various counsel. The wife also applied for an adjournment, asserting that the husband had failed to comply with his discovery obligations.

The central legal issues before the court were whether there was a sufficient basis to establish apprehended bias warranting recusal, and whether the husband's alleged non-compliance with discovery obligations justified an adjournment of the proceedings.

Cronin J rejected the wife's application for recusal, finding that the mere coincidence of names between the judge's associate and the husband's former wife, without more, did not establish a reasonable apprehension of bias. Similarly, the court found no evidence of apprehended bias arising from discussions with counsel. The application for an adjournment was also refused, indicating that the court was not satisfied that the husband's discovery obligations had been so significantly breached as to warrant delaying the proceedings.

The court granted the applicant husband leave to rely upon five affidavits concerning property valuations. The respondent wife's application for an adjournment was refused.