A recent opinion piece published by the Canadian Bar Association’s National Magazine offers a timely perspective on how the public and legal profession can engage responsibly with unpopular court decisions.
Written by outgoing CBA president Bianca Kratt, K.C., the piece argues that criticism of court decisions is legitimate and valuable, but that it is most effective when it engages with the law, the reasoning, and the facts rather than the outcome alone.
Kratt outlines several principles for constructive criticism, including focusing on the substance of a decision rather than the individual judge who wrote it, considering a ruling’s full reasoning before forming a view, and directing concerns about the law itself to the legislature rather than the judiciary. She also notes that a judge’s role is to apply the law and the evidence, not to track public opinion, and that independent decision-making sometimes produces outcomes that are unpopular or disappointing.
These principles align closely with CSCJA’s ongoing public education work on judicial independence, which emphasizes that independence and accountability function together, not in opposition. Court proceedings remain open to public scrutiny, decisions can be debated and appealed, and formal processes exist to address genuine concerns about judicial conduct. What independence protects is the judiciary’s ability to decide cases based on the law, free from outside pressure.
Read the full opinion piece from the Canadian Bar Association’s National Magazine, “How to Critique Court Decisions Without Weakening the Courts.”
