Established in 1875, Canada’s Supreme Court is celebrating its 150th anniversary as the nation’s most prestigious court. The court is currently under the leadership of Richard Wagner, whose recent interview on CTV with Vassy Kapelos resonated with many in the exclusive community of judges and high-ranking officials. In their view, Canada has entered a perilous era regarding freedom of speech, the expression of thoughts, and social media engagement. The peril, in their eyes, runs particularly strongly against the judiciary. Using the United States and President Donald Trump as examples of the dire threat facing the legal hierarchy, Wagner told reporters on June 10, 2025, at his annual press conference on Parliament Hill that, “if a government attacks the media, judges, lawyers and universities — as Trump and his associates have done in recent weeks — there’s a good chance it’s a dictatorship and an autocratic government.”
Wagner may have a point about the judiciary being protected from political assault or interference. He would be correct that legal rulings should be respected, upheld, and enforced if they remain within the spirit of the nation’s constitution. But his decision to wade into another nation’s business and air his opinions in public created quite a stir in the nation’s capital. The typical Canadian Supreme Court justice avoids public attention, remaining strictly within the bounds of Canadian legal issues. Why did Wagner decide to raise his voice now? Why would he enter the U.S. political fray?
Wagner represents the best of Canada’s legal world. A lengthy legal career led to his 2004 appointment to the Quebec Superior Court, his 2012 elevation to the Supreme Court of Canada, and his ascension to Chief Justice in 2017. Before this round of highly publicized comments, Wagner remained well within standard Canadian Supreme Court justice norms. He communicated his concerns through public statements, particularly during legal conferences or when before an audience. Often emphasizing the rule of law, Wagner has argued for civility in the aftermath of difficult decisions. “Let me be clear – in a democracy, we accept and even desire that court decisions will be the topic of debates,” Wagner said. “But it is important that these debates take place in a respectful manner. And above all, in an informed manner. People should at the very least read court decisions before criticizing them.” His moderation and even-keeled temperament have usually prevailed. His recent remarks, however, strike a different chord and reveal a Chief Justice either worried about what he sees happening around the world or someone whose career is closing and sees a last opportunity to influence the debate and issue some final warnings.
Crafting a targeted statement at the annual press briefing, Wagner said, “Canada is not a superpower. But it is a democratic superpower. In this country, the rule of law is non-negotiable.” John Paul Tasker, writing for the CBC, interpreted Wagner’s remarks as ones aimed at the Trump administration and the conflicts the second-term president has encountered with opponents of his agenda. Trump has criticized rulings, argued for the impeachment of one judge, and used colourful language to call another a “radical left lunatic of a judge, a troublemaker and agitator” who should be off the bench, according to Tasker. But do critics of the rulings have reason to take issue with the Court’s rulings, and is Wagner displaying a hyper-sensitive idea of judicial respect?
Wagner’s reactions to a March ruling in R. v. Kruk which included the reference to a woman as a “person with a vagina” may display a disconnect with the public more than a defence of judicial independence. Quebec’s Minister for the Status of Women sponsored a motion that passed unanimously in the Quebec Legislature denouncing the term. Canadian Law Magazine reported that, “The motion asked that the national assembly ‘reiterate the importance of retaining the word “woman” and dissociate itself from the use of terms or concepts that contribute to the invisibilisation of women.’” Does Wagner believe the law deserves respect despite the woke language the rulings use to override standard definitions employed throughout constitutional history? Perhaps people object to the direction the Court is taking culturally, and Wagner should pay attention to that pushback with greater understanding.
In his CTV interview with Kapelos, he continued to project an elitism that breeds populist opposition. When asked about problems in the United States bleeding into Canada, Wagner replied, “We have strong institutions in Canada, but we have to protect them. And at the same time, we have to be optimistic, because we have strong institutions, we have a strong judicial system, we have our challenges in terms of funding, in terms of technology, but overall we have a good bench, we have strong and impartial judges, well trained, probably the best trained in the world, because we export our own expertise to other judges in other countries. And judges who are governed by ethical principles, which is not the case in other countries.”
But does Wagner realize that the millions in America who have arisen to protest judicial rulings believe justices are not serving the interests of the nation? Does he dismiss Canadians sharing these sentiments as misinformed? Worse, he suggests they may be part of a bigger problem. When Kapelos dug further about the threat of a dictatorship, Wagner said, “We know the reasons why we should be concerned. We don’t need to name the countries. Everybody knows about the countries. There are many countries, not only the ones you refer to, but others in the world. The experience, the same phenomenon of attacking the media, the traditional media, attacking the lawyers who don’t act in the same interest as the governing people, attacking the judges, not only their decisions, but the judges themselves. Those ingredients are the same. And you will realize, and Canadians will realize, that in fact, when all those ingredients are melted together, we have a dictatorship. And we have to be careful and to work against that. And that’s part of the legal system.”
Finally, Kapelos pressed the Chief Justice about misinformation and disinformation. Wagner strongly supports ensuring that accurate information gets released. He worries about those who shape and mould the information on social media or use it to leverage support for their cause or idea. Kapelos asked if clamping down on this equates to trampling on the rights of those who want to express their opinions or provide a different perspective. Wagner skillfully evaded the question, stressing the priority of accurate information in contrast to the restriction of false information. Whether the Chief Justice remains disconnected from the concerns of common, everyday Canadians remains unclear. His instincts, bred in the legal library of rights, order, and analysis, serve him well in his role. To make these rulings work, we need to connect Wagner’s theoretical legal thinking with the lived experiences of Canadians. Instead of pointing fingers about misinformation, Wagner and those of his station should prioritize better relationships with the people most affected by his decisions. Those Wagner views with disdain deserve more than a Chief Justice hiding behind judicial privilege to avoid responsibility and criticism. We should hold the Supreme Court in high regard, yet when did it become immune to scrutiny?
Dave Redekop is a retired elementary resource teacher who worked part-time at the St. Catharines Courthouse as a Registrar until being appointed Executive Director at Redeemer Bible Church in October 2023. He has been involved in political campaigns since high school and studied at a university in South Carolina for five years, earning a Master’s in American History with a focus on Civil Rights. Dave loves reading biographies.
