On April 30, 2025, Ontario’s three Chief Justices published a rare online statement expounding on the importance of an independent judiciary. Notably, it was released just a few hours after the Ontario Premier had made ex tempore remarks critical of the role of the judiciary in the Ontario justice system when he was asked about the interlocutory injunction enjoining the removal of Toronto bike lanes under s. 195.6 of the Highway Traffic Act.
Let me begin by saying this post is most certainly not any sort of political commentary or endorsement, so I’ve had to avoid reproducing any portion of the aforementioned statements. I heed the parting words of Jedi Master Obi-Wan Kenobi during the waning days of the Clone Wars who lamented, “Oh no. I’m not brave enough for politics.”
Instead, what I can say about this exercise in executive-judicial relations is that it generated about as much public fanfare as the opening night of Tommy Wiseau’s The Room, a film some astute critics have described as, “Borat trying to do an impression of Christopher Walken playing a mental patient.” That’s not hyperbole; the film single-handedly turned off entire generations from football.
More on that later.
My point is it’s worrying that the statements from our provincial government and judiciary have largely gone under the public’s radar, particularly at a time when there’s a spillover of legal tensions from the United States and frequent comparisons being made between the politicisation of American and Canadian courts. What happens to our established legal institutions will in turn have cascading effects on the rest of our democratic institutions.
The Current State of Canadian Justice
As one prominent Canadian criminal defence lawyer, Michael Spratt, recently put, “Canada’s erosion of judicial independence isn’t just a looming threat – it’s already happening.” And he’s right.
The World Justice Project’s Rule of Law Index ranked Canada 25th across 142 countries in 2024 with regard to its adherence to the rule of law in the area of civil justice, measuring such factors as the resolution of grievances peacefully and effectively through the civil justice system, the accessibility and affordability of the civil justice system, whether court proceedings are conducted without unreasonable delays, the enforcement of decisions, and the accessibility, impartiality and effectiveness of alternative dispute mechanisms. While our adherence to the rule of law remains relatively strong, our numbers have been steadily declining since 2016.
In 2023, Justice Canada conducted its most recent National Justice Survey (NJS), an annual public opinion research survey that polls Canadians on their views on various justice-related issues. The NJS concerning public confidence in the civil justice system (with a focus on the family justice system) reported higher numbers, finding that 58% of the respondents polled reported being moderately to very confident that the civil justice system is fair to all people and 18% of respondents reported being not at all confident.
Surveys conducted by the Canadian Election Study from 2008 and thereafter at each election cycle combined with research data obtained by Professors Andrea Lawlor and Erin Crandall in 2023 reported 47% of respondents having “quite a lot” of confidence in the Canadian courts. Canadians’ confidence in their Courts peaked in 2011 at 54.89%. 11% of respondents had a “great deal” of confidence in 2023, but this was a decline from 25.53% in 2008. There was also an increase in the number of Canadians who did “not have very much” confidence in the courts from 16.55% to 33% in 2008 and 2023 respectively.
A Possible Solution to an Age-Old Problem
While our numbers haven’t quite plummeted to Dow Jones Industrial Average levels of low – they remain relatively high among our peers – there is undeniably a dangerous, growing public discontentment with and lack of support for our legal institutions. I think this downward trend is attributable to the long-standing disconnect between the public and key stakeholders in the justice system.[1]
Anyone else remember the public spectacle that was the proposed appointment of Justice Marc Nadon to the Supreme Court of Canada in 2014 and the high-profile accusations levelled by the executive branch against the Court? Some experts have even suggested that popular media portrayed the Court’s role as a “significant roadblock to the Conservative government’s policy agenda.” It was clear then the relationship between the public and our justice system was fractured.
Look, whether you agree with Ontario’s Chief Justices or the Ontario Premier, my personal belief is that the proper functioning of an independent judiciary requires public confidence. And public confidence is best informed by education as a first step. Grievances with our justice system, whether actual or perceived, should be discussed openly by members of the public, and we – the legal profession – should welcome and participate in that dialogue. But we have to be careful to disentangle informed grievances from those born of a lack of knowledge and understanding, otherwise we risk chasing phantoms and losing sight of what we cherish most about our system of justice.
At its highest, this ideal would mean that we can all be disappointed with the outcome of any one case but remain unified in our views that justice was done because we understand that what led to the result was a justice system with its constitutional safeguards, judicial independence, impartiality and accountability, and appellate mechanisms working to protect the legal rights and interests of all of its participants.
So I conclude by echoing the words of the late Honourable R. Roy McMurtry, former Chief Justice of Ontario: “While the profession should never be intimidated by the public criticism which does have a rather ancient pedigree, we do have a continuing responsibility to better educate the public in relation to the fundamental principles and objectives of the administrations of justice. A commitment to continuing public education should include initiatives at all levels of the education system, speaking to community audiences and providing forums for constructive discussions with the media.”
[1] It is worth noting that Professors Lawlor and Crandall opine that political ideology may be playing a much stronger role today in informing public support for the judiciary than it did twenty years ago. See https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/canadian-journal-of-law-and-society-la-revue-canadienne-droit-et-societe/article/public-support-for-canadian-courts-understanding-the-roles-of-institutional-trust-and-partisanship/D38965284D8BC3FC440A4CD0032C14AB.