The CSCJA was one of the partners of the Canadian Institute for the Administration of Justice’s conference, “Democracy, the Rule of Law, and Independence,” which took place on November 18 to 20, 2025. We had great representation from our membership, both in person and virtually.
Across all sessions, a consistent message emerged: judicial independence is not self-executing. It depends on legal structures, institutional norms, public understanding, and constant reinforcement. These discussions provide a strong foundation for future CSCJA messaging on the judiciary’s role in upholding the rule of law, aligned with international research and data from organizations such as the World Justice Project.
For those who could not attend the conference, see below for high-level summaries of four sessions around the independence of the judiciary.
You can also read the closing remarks from the Right Honourable Richard Wagner, P.C., Chief Justice of Canada.
Finally, the Canadian Bar Association’s CBA National also provided this conference summary.
- Panel – Overview of the Conference Topics: The opening session grounded the conference in first principles, examining democracy’s inherent vulnerabilities when public decision-making is driven by emotion, self-interest, and misinformation. Drawing on classical political thought and contemporary data, panelists emphasized that the rule of law, particularly an independent judiciary, is the stabilizing force that protects democratic societies from demagoguery and institutional breakdown. Judicial independence, equal application of the law, access to justice, and effective remedies were identified as the non-negotiable pillars that allow democratic systems to function credibly and predictably.
- Conversation – How to Counter the Impact of Disinformation on Judicial Independence: This session explored the tension between judicial independence and judicial overreach, underscoring the importance of restraint as a democratic virtue. Speakers argued that courts derive legitimacy from applying law and fact, not personal conscience or political preference, and that frequent or sweeping departures from precedent risk undermining public confidence. The discussion reinforced that constitutional democracies rely on a careful balance: courts must be independent enough to uphold rights and limits on power, yet restrained enough to avoid politicization. When that balance is lost, judicial independence itself becomes vulnerable to attack, particularly in polarized environments where institutional trust is already fragile.
- Panel – Restoring Trust: Legitimacy of Democratic and Judicial Institutions: Focusing on trust and the modern media landscape, this session examined how declining journalism capacity, digital disinformation, and platform-driven polarization weaken democratic norms. With traditional media shrinking and unregulated digital spaces expanding, courts increasingly operate in an environment where misinformation about judicial roles and decisions spreads rapidly. Panelists emphasized that judicial independence depends in part on a public that understands how courts function, and that this understanding is eroded when credible media is undermined. The session positioned media literacy, institutional transparency, and responsible reporting as indirect but essential supports for judicial legitimacy.
- Panel – Justice and Democracy in the Americas: A Region Under Pressure: This session addressed the broader social conditions that sustain or destabilize democracy. Panelists traced how populism, polarization, and declining civic education create fertile ground for delegitimizing courts and other independent institutions. Importantly, these pressures often arise not from overt authoritarianism, but from widespread frustration and misunderstanding. Canadian experience was presented as a story of democratic resilience built through tolerance, restraint, and ongoing negotiation of constitutional meaning. The session underscored that judicial independence must be continuously explained and defended.
