Chief Justice Richard Wagner seeks to modernize the image of the Supreme Court of Canada. With the holding of traveling sessions in Quebec and Winnipeg, for example, there are many recent innovations there. However, by dint of investing in the public space, the chief judge sometimes comes to serve the interests of the institution he directs.
Published at 9:00 a.m.
Blamed by Raymond Théberge, Commissioner of Official Languages, Judge Wagner recently engaged in clumsy public justifications. The subject of the commissioner’s opinion: a complaint from the organization Droits collectives Québec demanding the translation of approximately 6,000 decisions rendered between 1875 and 1970, and published only in English1.
Since the entry into force of the Official Languages Act in 1969, the Supreme Court practices exemplary bilingualism. However, before this date, decisions were rendered only in the language used during the hearing. Of course, they were subsequently digitized and republished, but without ever being translated.
Asked about the subject during a press conference, the chief justice described these decisions as elements of “legal cultural heritage”. In a categorical tone, he declared: “There is no one today who will refer to a decision from 1892 to support their case. »
As if judicial precedents had no importance in a common law system, and as if the adoption of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms had wiped out the past, Chief Justice Wagner considers that “the legal value of these historic decisions is quite minimal.”
Furthermore, the translation of these decisions would cost too much, the judge believes. Yet so quick to remind governments that the financial cost is a very poor argument when it comes to fundamental rights, the chief justice takes refuge, in turn, behind the economic argument.
In 1985, the Supreme Court imposed the translation of all laws and regulations adopted in Manitoba between 1890 and 1985, without regard to the cost or the “minimal legal value” of these older texts.
With great evils and great means, on November 8, the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court finally announced the withdrawal of all unilingual decisions from its website. By erasing its decisions from the period 1875-1970 from its site, the Supreme Court is practicing a form of “levelling down”.
As the Supreme Court celebrates its 150th anniversary this yeare anniversary, the statements of Chief Justice Wagner and the withdrawal of unilingual decisions from 1875 to 1970 reveal a certain disinterest in history.
The inauguration of one’s own bust
If the “old” decisions of the Supreme Court are of little use in the eyes of Chief Justice Wagner, the image he intends to leave to posterity seems to concern him more. As revealed by journalist Chris Nardi in the pages of National Post2a bust of Richard Wagner recently appeared in the great hall of the Court.
PHOTO TAKEN FROM JEAN-PIERRE BUSQUE’S SITE
Justice Richard Wagner next to his bust at the Supreme Court
Traditionally, such a bust is commissioned and then unveiled After retirement of a chief justice. The work is then financed by a patron, usually its original bar. However, here, Chief Justice Wagner refused to disclose the identity of the donor. In doing so, he broke with a tradition which, for ethical reasons, should not have been dismissed out of hand.
What will the Chief Justice do if the anonymous philanthropist who sponsored the sculpture is involved in a case before the Court? By keeping the identity of the patron confidential, public trust is undermined.
Besides, what would we say about the ego of a Justin Trudeau or a Pierre Poilievre who, during their mandate, would display their own effigy within the walls of the institutions they lead? No doubt we are often more severe towards our elected officials than towards our judges.
Public statements on upcoming issues
Chief Justice Wagner is increasing his public statements on current issues. Every few months, he commented on several contentious cases that are making their way to the Supreme Court.
In April 2022, when asked about holding a secret criminal trial, the chief judge declared that the situation was “implausible and […] very deplorable »3. In the name of the principle of fundamental justice of open proceedings, Richard Wagner then jumps into the fray, neglecting the fact that the Court will rule on the question in June 20244.
In a speech to the Montreal International Relations Council in June 2022, the chief justice also denounces the « spreading disinformation”, during what he calls the “so-called” freedom convoy5. However, in January 2024, his colleague from the Federal Court Richard Mosley declared the use of the Emergency Measures Act6. Since then, the dispute over the freedom convoy has moved to the Federal Court of Appeal and is likely to find its final outcome before the Supreme Court.
Even in a case relating to the internal administration of the Court, like that on the translation of decisions rendered before 1970, Judge Wagner should exercise restraint. After all, the Supreme Court may soon have to rule on a very similar question, that of the translation of constitutional laws adopted before 1982.
By asserting that the translation of old unilingual decisions is legally irrelevant, the chief judge suggests possible reluctance towards this legal challenge undertaken by former parliamentarian Serge Joyal and Professor François Laroque. Will their request be more legally relevant in the eyes of Judge Wagner? The answer will perhaps come in a few years.
1. Read the text “Translation of old decisions: the Supreme Court is under threat of being dragged to court”
2. Read the text of the National Post « Supreme Court won’t disclose mysterious donor behind expensive gift for chief justice » (en anglais)
3. Read Yves Boisvert’s column “This is not a secret trial”
4. Consult the Supreme Court judgment
5. Read the text “Judge Richard Wagner is concerned about the stability of our institutions”
6. Read the text “Freedom Convoy: the use of Emergency Measures Act unjustified, rules the Federal Court »
What do you think? Participate in the dialogue
