Canada

I think it should be, especially in the legal profession where it's their job to think of these sorts of circumstances. As the legal professionals quoted in the article mention, the judge should've informed all parties of their ownership of a significant asset that could be impacted by the ruling (ie perceived conflict of interest), and recuse themselves if any party objects to that.

As an engineer, we have a similar code that says we must notify any parties of potential or perceived conflicts of interest before starting work or at the first instance where it becomes known to the engineer. As such, it would be unethical to recommend developing land that I just happen to own, unless I clearly state that I own the land with potential to be developed before working on the project, and make clear justification of why that land is favourable to other locations. Even then, I might excuse myself from the project to completely avoid that potential conflict.

I think this judge's actions are clearly unethical, and the ruling shouldn't stand unless another judge without conflict of interest rules the same.