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

Gwen Landolt, a right wing activist, has described McLachlin as “clever and duplicitous.” A close observer of the Supreme Court commented that she seeks “consensus at the expense of principle,” and “will cobble together just about anything to achieve agreement.” (Nonetheless, personally McLachlin remains a frequent dissenter in decisions.) A senior lawyer who has appeared many times before the court said she runs it as if it were a part of government: “She’s always moving to the centre; she’s not prepared to be outrageous, and I think that’s a problem. It’s a court of justice, not a government department.” Another told me, “the court is less daring than it should be. It sometimes defers on major moral issues, and that is cowardice.”

A former law clerk to one of McLachlin’s predecessors as chief justice, who has since appeared often before the Supreme Court, said that McLachlin seems unduly constrained by her role. “She seems to think she speaks for the court, or should. She forgets she is just one of nine judges.” Another former clerk said, “She loves her prerogatives as chief justice, like being deputy governor general.” “No presence at all,” an Ottawa insider told me. “I was at a dinner speech she made, and it was very boring. People started chatting with each other before she had finished.” A very senior federal politician said, “Beverley McLachlin has never had an original idea.”

There will always be naysayers. Despite their complaints, Beverley McLachlin has done a good job as chief justice. She is competent and coherent, and, so far, we seem content with her as only Canadians can be. But, is McLachlin a true leader, or just an agreeable legal technocrat? Where is the articulated vision, from the bully pulpit, of better law in a better society? The jury is still out on the answers to these questions. McLachlin has almost 10 years before she reaches the mandatory retirement age of 75, to put our minds at rest.

If there were a quintessential Canadian, she might be Beverley McLachlin. No elite background here; she’s from a small town, the child of deeply religious parents, educated well but not in foreign schools and universities, never divorced but having experience life as a single mother after her first husband died, mainstream all the way, even-handed and even-tempered, moderate and cautious; probably smarter, more self-confident, perhaps more ambitious—and certainly luckier—than most.

Philip Slayton is a former dean of a Canadian law school, and was partner of a major law firm. He is working on a book about the Supreme Court of Canada, where he once clerked.

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