In reporting on Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) Justices touring the country, the Canadian Press described it as a “roadshow,” defined by Merriam-Webster as “a theatrical performance given by a troupe on tour.” Having met with select groups in Winnipeg in 2019 and Quebec City in 2022, the judges will press the flesh of Canadians in 2025 when visiting Moncton, Yellowknife, Sherbrooke and Thunder Bay.
Three of the SCC judges visited Victoria in early February, where Chief Justice Wagner reportedly said the court has long relied on traditional media to inform the public on the court’s work, but a shrinking media workforce and increasing misinformation online means the court needs to do more to engage with the public: “More and more people are getting their news from social media, which there are some good things, but very bad things as well.”
The Supreme Court claims that these visits “are intended to promote a better understanding of the Court’s role and function and reflect on how its decisions have shaped the country’s legal landscape.” Laudable goals, certainly, but the Supreme Court does have a website, and its rulings are also readily available at www.canlii.org and elsewhere. The videos that are already being produced by the Court’s Chief Justice do not require him to travel to cities across Canada.
The SCC boldly proclaims itself “a shining beacon for democracy, recognized around the world as a champion for the fundamental principles of openness, transparency and judicial independence and its service to Canadians.”
Sadly, many Canadians do not see their Supreme Court in this way. Chief Justice Wagner declared in June 2018 that he was “very proud” of his Court being “the most progressive in the world.” What message does that send to Canadians who do not embrace his “progressive” political persuasion?
Le Devoir reported that Chief Justice Wagner characterized the peaceful 2022 Freedom Convoy protest in Ottawa as “anarchy,” and “hostage-taking” and “forced blows against the state, justice and democratic institutions,” even though this protest was devoid of violence, vandalism, threats, and arson (unlike some other protests). He went on to declare that the Freedom Convoy “should be forcefully denounced by all figures of power in the country.” Is this the “progressive” lens through which the Supreme Court will judge cases arising from this peaceful protest? Tamara Lich and Chris Barber have strong reason to doubt a fair hearing, were their case to ever reach the SCC.
It doesn’t stop with the Freedom Convoy. Justice Andromache Karakatsanis asserted as a fact in Hansman v. Neufeld that “While gender was once understood only in the binary of ‘male’ or ‘female,’ today, society’s understanding of gender has broadened to encompass a spectrum of gender identities, modes of expression, and related terminology, all of which continue to evolve.”
Her colleague Sheila Martin gratuitously and very progressively referred to a woman as “a person with a vagina” in R. v. Kruk, a ruling endorsed by five other Supreme Court Justices. R. v. Kruk was not a case where the female complainant or the male accused claimed to be transgender, or where gender identity or gender expression was an issue before the court. Rather, it was a straight-forward, all-too-common and very sad case of sexual assault.
People have busy lives. If very few Canadians are reading the Supreme Court’s rulings, perhaps this is simply an unchangeable reality that the Court must accept. Further, one cannot assume that Canadians’ esteem for their highest court will increase if Canadians read more of this Court’s judgments.
When announcing the Court’s visit to Winnipeg in 2019, Chief Justice Wagner declared: “It’s important for us to be more accessible to all Canadians, because the Supreme Court is your Court.” Promising voters direct access is what one expects from politicians. Judges do not need to be “accessible” to the public in the same way. On the contrary, judges do not represent any geographical constituency, interest group or political party. Judges are appointed to rule impartially, according to law and not based on the preferences of any particular groups, or even the preferences of Canadians as a whole — much less the preferences of judges themselves. Judges must rule on evidence placed before them, to the exclusion of media reports. Judges do not need to (and should not) tour Canada and press the flesh as politicians do.
If the Supreme Court wishes for Canadians to hold it in high esteem, it should simply focus on its work, with quiet diligence and without public fanfare. Rather than continuing with what the Canadian Press describes as a roadshow, Chief Justice Wagner should assure Canadians that the Supreme Court is truly independent, neither progressive nor conservative. He should refrain from making any further political comments. Even better, he might expressly apologize for politicizing both his office and the Court with his comments about the Freedom Convoy.
John Carpay- Western Standard
