What is the difference between a chambers judge and a trial judge?

At least three reasons counsel a reduced level of judicial scrutiny. First, the trial court has the ultimate burden to adjudge the merits of the case. Harper v. Canada, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 764, 768 & 772. Judicial restraint on the part of the chambers court ensures that the trial court will approach the judging task with an open mind unfettered in any way by the prior intervention of the chambers judge. Second, a limited review on the merits reduces the risk that the judgments of the chambers and trial courts will be seen to be inconsistent. An informed observer will appreciate that any differences of opinion may be attributable to the different levels of scrutiny brought to the task. Third, the material available to a chambers court will be less complete, generally speaking, than is presented to the trial judge. Disclosure has likely been minimal and neither side has had the opportunity to pursue all helpful lines of inquiry. A detailed review is simply not warranted.