What is the impact of unnecessary recusal by a trial judge?

Subsequently Justice Côté in Boardwalk Reit LLP v. Edmonton (City), 2008 ABCA 176 at paras. 93-108, 437 A.R. 199 stressed the disruptive effects of an unnecessary recusal by a trial judge: 1. recusal is a mechanism to engage in “judge shopping” (paras. 96-99); 2. recusal inevitably causes expense to the public and parties (paras. 100-102); 3. unnecessary recusal tarnishes the reputation of the courts with the result that “... the courts and all Canadian justice would look at least incompetent and Dickensian” (para. 103); 4. recusal may eliminate the available judicial pool (para. 104); 5. recusal may impede the rarely exercised but important right of a judge to sue on his or her own behalf (para. 105); 6 overly aggressive approaches to recusal subvert attempts to operate courts in an efficient manner and delay justice (paras. 106-107); and 7. some prior connection between a judge and potential litigants is almost inevitable (paras. 14-19, 108). B. Positions of the Parties 1. The Crown