The Canadian Bar Association’s British Columbia Branch (CBABC), The Advocates’ Society and the CBA’s National Magazine have each spoken out this fall on how to criticize court decisions without attacking the judges who make them.
Judges decide cases on the law and the facts before them, not on personal bias or opinion. All three pieces start from that principle: a ruling can be debated, but a judge’s character should not be. In his October 3 statement on judicial independence, CBABC President Connor Bildfell writes that decisions can be scrutinized and that attacking a judge’s character or fitness, including calling for removal, goes too far. Judges cannot respond publicly, which makes personal attacks especially damaging to confidence in the courts.
When a party disagrees with a decision, the system already provides a remedy: appeal. Appeal courts review the law, the reasoning and the record. Public campaigns built on incomplete information do none of that, and they spread misinformation. In National Magazine, past CBA president Bianca Kratt, K.C., offers five suggestions for constructive criticism: address the merits, read the whole decision, criticize the decision and not the person, direct concerns about the law to the legislature, and remember that judges are not meant to follow public opinion. Read the full article: How to critique court decisions without weakening the courts.
The Advocates’ Society makes the same distinction. In an October 6 letter to the editor of the National Post, President Craig A.B. Ferris, K.C., writes that public debate about court decisions is essential to democracy. Reasoned criticism, appeal and legislative change are the proper responses to a ruling. Personal attacks on judges, questions about their impartiality and calls for removal are pressure, not accountability, and risk undermining judicial independence.
Public awareness and education about judicial independence is a priority for the CSCJA. It is encouraging to see the bar making the same case so clearly.
