Ruling dismissing father’s request stresses value of judicial continuity in family law matters
In a family law proceeding, Justice Kiran Sah of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice dismissed a father’s second recusal request, which according to the judge abused the process and undermined the administration of justice.
The father – the applicant in McIntosh v. Kim, 2026 ONSC 2779 – sought to recuse Sah in his Nov. 4, 2025, notice of motion. Last Feb. 9, Sah denied the motion in an endorsement applying equally to six other court files in which the father was a party.
In his Apr. 15 notice of motion, the father again attempted to recuse Sah from any matters potentially involving him. To support his second recusal request, the father alleged that:
Sah dismissed the second motion for her recusal.
First, Justice Sah ruled that the father’s decision to sue her personally did not rebut the strong presumption of judicial impartiality.
“A reasonable person, understanding the judicial process, the nature of judging, and a judge’s jurisdiction under the Family Law Rules, O. Reg. 114/99, would not conclude that being sued automatically impairs a judge’s impartiality,” Sah wrote. “Allowing such a tactic would amount to impermissible judge shopping.”
Upon viewing the evidence objectively, Sah saw:
Sah pointed out that the father’s disagreement with her decisions did not amount to a reasonable apprehension of bias.
Citing Aldahleh v. Zayed, 2023 ONSC 6553, Sah recognized that judicial continuity, particularly in family law matters, promoted efficiency and fairness.
Here, Sah noted that Regional Senior Justice (RSJ) Stephen Firestone tasked her with hearing all motions in the parties’ proceedings.
Sah held that the father’s suit against her did not automatically create extraneous influence or prevent the independent exercise of her judicial function to uphold the RSJ’s orders, to protect the judiciary’s institutional and operational independence, and to keep hearing motions involving the parties.
“The father sent an offer to settle offering to the withdraw civil action and pay me $10,000 in costs, but only if I do not recuse myself in this matter,” Sah wrote. “He claims it is impossible for me to maintain any partiality when I have the opportunity to gain $10,000 based on my decision.”
Sah noted that she rejected the father’s settlement offer, thus thwarting his attempt to create a pecuniary relationship.
Second, Justice Sah ruled that her initiation of a vexatious litigant proceeding under r. 2.2 did not rebut the strong presumption of judicial impartiality.
Based on the evidence, Sah saw no reasonable apprehension of bias in connection with the r. 2.2 proceeding, as well as no actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest arising from its initiation.
Sah noted that she was acting under the court’s established authority to control vexatious litigation by commencing the r. 2.2 proceeding, which:
