A few minutes before our meeting, Supreme Court Chief Justice Richard Wagner spoke to a packed auditorium to whom he gave a preview of some information released more officially last week.
The Gaspé residents who attended the Carleton-sur-Mer International Journalism Festival, and who drank his words, therefore learned before anyone else what the magistrate had thought of the motion passed by the National Assembly last March to denounce the use of the expression “person with a vagina”, in a judgment by Justice Sheilah Martin. They also held their breath when the judge announced that “there had been no secret trial in Canada”, the main conclusion of a decision made public Friday regarding a decision of the Court of Appeal of Quebec1.
But it was not to tell us all this that Judge Wagner made the trip to Chaleur Bay. He wanted to talk about disinformation and access to justice, two subjects that are particularly close to his heart.
The Chief Justice wants Canadians to be more interested in the work and judgments of the Supreme Court. Of all the courts in the country, in fact. For what ? “Because our decisions affect people’s daily lives,” he says.
I point out to the judge that there is something intimidating, for ordinary people, about reading a decision written by a judge. It’s quite off-putting. He is aware of it. And it is for this reason that since his appointment in 2017, he has put in place several measures to facilitate access to the work of the Supreme Court. One example: “The Case in Brief,” a popularized summary of the nation’s highest court’s decisions, written by its communications department.
Justice Wagner also moved the work of his Court outside the walls of Ottawa twice. In Winnipeg, in September 2019 – a historic first – and in Quebec, in April 2022. During these two trips, which required nearly two years of preparation, the judges heard cases and interacted with the public. Very positive experiences that the chief judge wishes to repeat.
Under the leadership of Richard Wagner, the Supreme Court has also put in place support for people who wish to represent themselves. “There are between 20 and 25% of applications (the Court accepts approximately 40 applications out of the 500 received) which are filed by people who represent themselves alone,” specifies the magistrate. Of this number, many cannot afford to be represented by a lawyer. Others believe they are in a better position to represent themselves. We have to meet these needs, so we decided to support them in their process rather than telling them that the procedure is not compliant. »
These are just some of the changes Justice Wagner has implemented to make justice and information more accessible. “I continually think about ways to improve the system,” he insists.
Talking to Richard Wagner, we realize how much his entire approach is inspired by a genuine concern for others. “People need to be treated well, with dignity,” he says. “You can win or lose a case, but in both cases, dignity must always be there. We don’t expect citizens to always agree with decisions, but they must accept them even if they lose their case. And even if they don’t agree with the result, if dignity is respected, they will feel respected. That’s why they need to be well informed.”
In my (very) humble opinion, if there is something that arouses incomprehension among the population, and that can undermine people’s confidence in justice, it is sentencing.
I am surely not the only one to think that, sometimes, the sentences do not seem to correspond to the harm that has been done.
“You touch on such a sensitive and important point,” Judge Wagner confirms to me. If we want to maintain the credibility of the system, we must explain to people why we arrive at these decisions. It is necessary to explain what criteria the judge is obliged to consider when determining a sentence, why conditional releases are provided in certain circumstances, etc. We cannot just say: this is the way the law is. »
Judge Wagner of course believes in fair sentences. But he also believes in rehabilitation. And to explain to me where his conviction comes from, he tells me an anecdote. “My father was a criminal judge,” he begins. One day, he had before him a habitual criminal, a gentleman in his thirties who had started his crimes at the age of 12. In his life, he had spent more time in prison than outside. The Crown asked to have him declared a dangerous offender because there were several charges against him. But declaring him a dangerous offender meant throwing away the key. »
Judge Wagner’s father was convinced that this man should be given one last chance and therefore refused to comply with the Crown’s request.
And as in the films, as luck would have it, years later, Judge Wagner Jr. crossed paths with the individual who had finally come out of prison, had rehabilitated himself and had written a book.
“He sold his book at Carrefour Laval,” says Richard Wagner. I went to introduce myself, he couldn’t believe it. He said to me: you know, your father was strict, but he gave me a chance and this is what I did with it…”
A beautiful story which shows that rehabilitation is not just wishful thinking.
We see that Richard Wagner is a profoundly human being. I ask him if there is a place for his personal values in his job as chief justice. “We’re not robots,” he replies. We have our strengths and our weaknesses. We were raised in a certain way, in a particular environment, a different culture. »
The Chief Justice points out that 20 years ago, we didn’t talk about the issue of unconscious bias. “We all have our biases and we name it more than before,” he says. We had the impression that the law was there and that the judges were perfectly objective regarding this law. The quality of the judiciary depends precisely on this recognition of our differences. This is why the National Judicial Institute that I direct provides training on the social context of prejudices, how to combat the biases that we naturally have. Ultimately, it’s about being aware of our unconscious biases. »
I would have continued talking with Judge Wagner for hours. Before resigning myself to letting him go, I ask him what he finds most difficult about his job. “It’s the worry, the pressure to make the right decision,” he answers me frankly.
But over the years, I imagine we become less doubtful?
“No, we still have that concern. And when I no longer have it, it will be time for me to resign and do something else…”