Wednesday February 28, 2024

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Wednesday February 28, 2024

Preserving Judicial Independence in Canada

As a concerned citizen watching the political landscape in Canada, it’s disheartening to witness the recent developments surrounding Premier Doug Ford’s approach to judicial appointments. Ford’s candid admission of his intention to appoint “like-minded” judges raises troubling questions about the impartiality and independence of our judiciary, mirroring trends observed south of the border during the Trump administration.

In a recent editorial by the Toronto Star, the Premier’s decision to appoint former senior staffers to the Judicial Appointments Advisory Committee is rightfully criticized as a move that threatens the non-partisan model for judicial appointments. The editorial rightly points out that the appointment process should be based on merit rather than political alliances, and Ford’s justification for his decisions reflects a dangerous politicization of a crucial aspect of our justice system.

Editorial: Why Doug Ford’s plan for “like-minded” judges is a terrible move

Ford’s assertion that he was elected to appoint “like-minded” individuals to the judiciary is a direct departure from the principles that underpin our justice system — a system built on fairness, evidence, and the rule of law. The Federation of Ontario Law Associations rightly condemns these remarks as reflecting a “juvenile understanding of the role of an independent judiciary.”

While I am generally wary of drawing parallels between Canadian politicians and their American counterparts, it’s challenging to ignore the echoes of partisanship in judicial appointments reminiscent of the U.S. Supreme Court under the Trump administration. Ford’s approach, aiming to stack the courts with judges who align with his ideology, poses a clear threat to the independence of our judiciary.

The editorial mentions former Premier Kathleen Wynne’s dismissal of Ford’s claim that he was elected to appoint “like-minded” people. Her assertion that intentionally tainting the judicial process is reprehensible is a sentiment shared by many who value the integrity of our legal system. Ford’s actions, coupled with his track record of invoking the notwithstanding clause and under-resourcing courts, contribute to a concerning pattern that jeopardizes the foundations of our justice system.

The danger of a “like-minded” judiciary is not exclusive to Canada. In an opinion piece from The Washington Post, Ruth Marcus discusses the importance of identifying the president who appointed federal judges in the U.S. as a predictor of outcomes. A study by Harvard Law School Professor Alma Cohen reinforces the notion that party affiliation can significantly influence judicial outcomes, a finding that should give us pause.

Opinion: Does it matter which party nominated a judge? Here’s why it does

As we navigate the complexities of our legal system, it becomes crucial for citizens to remain vigilant about the composition of our courts. Party affiliations should not overshadow the merit-based selection of judges, and we must resist any attempts to compromise the independence of our judiciary. The lessons from the United States serve as a stark reminder that the path Ford is treading is a perilous one, with potential repercussions for the credibility and fairness of our legal system.

In the upcoming elections, it is incumbent upon us to consider not only the policies but also the values and principles that candidates uphold, especially when it comes to judicial appointments. Our justice system deserves leaders who prioritize the rule of law and safeguard the independence of our judiciary, ensuring that justice remains blind to political affiliations.