Judging Beverley

Canada’s chief justice has won respect—but not always admiration

by Philip Slayton on Thursday, July 9, 2009 12:20pm - 9 Comments

Judging BeverleyThe 10th anniversary of Beverley McLachlin’s appointment as chief justice of Canada will come early next year, on Jan. 7, but commentators are already taking stock. They increasingly speak of the “McLachlin court,” and try to pin down ways she’s changed or influenced the court’s direction. Her formal powers are limited—the most significant is determining the size of a panel (five, seven or nine judges) hearing a case, and, if it’s less than the full complement of nine, deciding the panel’s composition. But as the court’s titular head and public face, her informal ability to influence the other judges and set the tone is considerable. To the country, and to the world, she is the Supreme Court of Canada. She is often described as the most powerful person in the land. But what do we know about Beverley McLachlin, and how has she measured up in high public office?

There was nothing remarkable about McLachlin’s life until she began her dizzying climb to judicial power. She was born in 1943, in Pincher Creek, Alta. It’s a town of about 3,600, two hours south of Calgary—a place with few Aboriginals or visible minorities, where almost everyone owns the house they live in. McLachlin was the first of Ernest and Eleanora Gietz’s five children. The family worked a ranch southwest of town and a sawmill, and her parents were fundamentalist Christians; she has described them as “fervent believers” and of “high moral value.” As a child, she attended a Pentecostal church.

McLachlin speaks of a deep affection for Pincher Creek and its values: “You had this sense of privilege that you were living in this very special place, even though it was remote and not very important.” In a 2004 interview, she said that her small-town, old-fashioned background had a considerable effect on her work as a judge. “I think I have a very strong sense of a connection between people and place. Understanding that is important to the law. Much of the law has to do with where people want to be, what kind of culture they want to have the right to further, geographically, culturally and so on.” She has said that she thinks of her hometown every day. A painting by Robert McInnes called Pincher Creek, showing wheat fields and a farmhouse, hangs in her Supreme Court office.

McLachlin followed a conventional path after high school, with little along the way to suggest future eminence. She went to Edmonton in 1960 to study philosophy at the University of Alberta with the vague and traditional idea of becoming a teacher. In 1965, B.A. in hand, she enrolled in the University of Alberta law school and, three years later, graduated at the top of her class. In between, she married Rory McLachlin, a biologist and environmental consultant, whom she met on campus. She once said: “He was the type of man who smoked his own salmon, made his own wine, cut his own wood.”

McLachlin practised law for just five years, in Alberta and then in B.C., before joining the law faculty of the University of British Columbia as an associate professor. In April 1981, at age 37, she was appointed to the Vancouver County Court. She has acknowledged that being a woman may have helped. “Gender may have been a factor because at that time, there were very few women on the courts and they were looking for more, and there weren’t a lot of women out there to choose from.” This was when she began to learn French, a sensible thing to do for an Anglophone aspiring to higher office. Within just a few months, she was appointed to the Supreme Court of British Columbia. “I think I got carried along in this huge crise de conscience—we have no women judges, what are we going to do about it? And there was one that looked not too bad so they pushed me up very quickly.”

By 1985, she’d been elevated to the Court of Appeal, and just three years after that, her 12-year-old son Angus picked up the phone one September evening and took a message from the prime minister. Brian Mulroney was calling to offer his mother the job of chief justice of the B.C. Supreme Court. Three days later, her husband Rory died of throat cancer. “He put his career on the back burner and put mine first . . . Rory did a lot of the child-rearing. Every time Angus had to go to emergency, it always seems it was Rory with him. It liberated me to do other things.” Within six months, Mulroney was calling again, this time to appoint McLachlin to the Supreme Court of Canada. The president of the Law Society of British Columbia commented that she’d made it through the court system faster than most cases.

McLachlin’s first decade on the Supreme Court defies easy characterization. Several of her more important judgments appealed to those on the right—the 1995 RJR-MacDonald case, for example, where she held that a federal ban on tobacco advertising was an infringement of the right to self-expression. But many of her judgments were attractive to the left—the 1998 Vriend decision, for instance, in which she said that the 1982 Charter of Rights and Freedoms required Alberta human rights legislation to protect gay rights. She was not afraid to dissent; an academic study found that in her first decade she agreed with the majority less than half the time. Some considered her a judge for all seasons, not rooted in any particular view of the law, but all agreed she had poise, common sense, and an impressive work ethic.

And she was a woman. When, in 1999, Antonio Lamer announced he would resign as chief justice at the beginning of 2000, her phone rang once more. This time it was prime minister Jean Chrétien calling. In announcing her appointment as chief justice, Chrétien said, “It was a great opportunity to have, for the first time, a woman as chief justice of Canada.” Professor emeritus Peter Russell, a long-time commentator on the Supreme Court, has said, “I think Chrétien, like Mulroney, loved the political spin factor.”

Bookmark and Share
  • JRM

    "It’s a town of about 3,600, two hours south of Calgary—a place with few Aboriginals or visible minorities, where almost everyone owns the house they live in"
    What crap! Pincher Creek is fortunate enough to be the main service centre for the Piikani Nation, the reserve is located about 18 kilometres west of Pincher Creek. I must be a minority in this town then because I don't happen to own my own home, come to think of it, nor do my neighbours. Weird.

    • Stardog

      Haha! Ya–few Aboriginals in Pincher Creek!?! Has Mr. Slayton ever been there???

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/truemuse truemuse

    I think there are over 400 cases that rely on Morgentaler. What if Morgentaler were overturned? How does McLachlin do damage control lest 'the security of the person' test under more erudite scrutiny in the future? She gives Morgentaler the Order of Canada with her authority over that process, while she makes no comment about the still divided public opinion on this criminal justice matter. I think it was Lois Arbor who came to the podium to talk about it, not McLachlin. Beverly McLachlin is an Admininstrator. She keeps the even keel but she's been steering us toward disaster and I think that this is how her legacy will be recorded. There are too few charter cases that now stand as precedent for the many cases that have deconstructed our criminal code and changed many laws that sat in our hearts as morality in this secular society. That is her legacy. Not one to be proud of.

  • yodelayeehoo

    Anyone who believes that these judges are making a single decision without instructions from on high, is about as naive as you could get. From the Supreme Court down to Small Claims Court, the expected decisions are made crystal clear to these people. Don't make trouble for the other players or the system, got it? No Headlines !!!! Decide on the least contentious side of every issue, wherever possible. In Small Claims court, the consumer wins. In Family court, the female wins. It's all hokus pokus, for sure. The lawyers see what's going on, but they don't balk because, well they're lawyers. When a potential client walks into a law office, the lawyer could them the outcome of the case instantly, but to share that information would thwart money making opportunities, so don't expect that to be happening. Ask Paul Cosgrove how the deal works. He got bounced for letting that troublesome Charter thing get in the way. He failed to respect the fact that the use of the Charter is reserved for cops, politicians and assorted connected people only. There's no need for a manual, the tacit exchanges they engage in gets the job done, just fine. But then again, how could you doubt the wisdom and integrity of someone with such a cool furry collar?

    • AJohn

      Wow! I think you're the naive one… For sure, you are talking through… well, through your hat…
      Maybe you should get one of those furry collars?

      • yodelayeehoo

        No hats here or furry collars for that matter. Just tons and tons of research and personal experience and then more research. Check out the blogs on ANY newspaper or political website now. The public is fed-up with corruption and theft. No one trusts anything to do with government and why should they? ehealth and DND scandals and Adscam and Smart Systems etc etc etc….. The real clincher is going to be when it's revealed what has been going on with the cops and the courts. Accused persons have become nothing more than customers for the scheme. Once that faith is trashed, watch out !!!! I know of what I write.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/prep prep

    [youtube GjiwI_S2qpc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GjiwI_S2qpc youtube]

    An example from the Sonia Sotomayor hearings.

    John Richardson – Toronto, Canada

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/prep prep

    For another interesting article which describes the relationship between "Who judges are and the kinds of decisions they make", see Kirk Makin's article in the July 21 Globe.

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/is-t…

    This article describes a new book by Professor Songer called: "The Transformation of the Supreme Court of Canada".

    The article includes the suggestion that:

    "All of the judges indicated that they believed that their personal attitudinal preferences affected their votes and opinions at least some of the time," Prof. Songer wrote. "The evidence is strong that in a substantial number of politically significant cases, the justices' private political attitudes and preferences influence their decisions."

    Prof. Songer also noted a "moderately strong relationship" between the federal party that appointed a judge and his or her policy preferences. "Notwithstanding disclaimers that judicial ideology is not actively considered in judicial selection," three of the judges actually confirmed their belief that this is so, he said."

    It is clear that the appointment of judges must become more democratic!

    John Richardson – Toronto, Canada

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/prep prep

    See an interview with Justice Sotomayor at:

    http://www.c-span.org/Watch/Media/2009/09/25/HP/R…

    This is a great example of how the public can learn about their judges. It's hard to imagine this happening in Canada.

    The contents of this interview are commented on in the following USA Today article.

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/judicial/…

    John Richardson – Toronto, Ontario

From Macleans