Is there any evidence of judicial bias in the trial judge's reasons relied on by ING?

Overall, I am satisfied that the passages from the trial judge's reasons relied on by ING, viewed individually or in combination, do not amount to judicial bias. Given the issues in play and the positions of the parties on those issues at trial, I am of the view that a reasonably informed person, reading the trial judge's reasons as a whole in light of the trial record, would conclude that the trial judge demonstrated no actual or apprehended bias. I would therefore reject this ground of appeal. [page711] The Athey v. Leonati issue

Athey v. Leonati, supra, is the leading Canadian case on causation in tort law. In Athey, Major J. reiterated the following well-established principles: (1) The general, but not conclusive, test for proof of causation is the "but for" test, which requires a plaintiff to show that his or her injury would not have occurred but for the negligence of the defendant (para. 14). (2) In certain circumstances, where the "but for" test is un-workable, causation may also be established where it is demonstrated that the defendant's negligence "materially contributed" to the occurrence of the tort victim's injury. It is not necessary for the plaintiff to establish that the defendant's negligence was the sole cause of the injury (paras. 15 and 17). (3) Liability will be imposed on a defendant for injuries caused or materially contributed to by his or her negligence. That liability is not reduced by the existence of other non-tortious contributing causes (paras. 22 and 23). (Citations omitted)