A coffee with the Right Honorable Richard Wagner | Open wide the doors of Justice

Visiting Gaspésie three weeks ago as part of the Carleton-sur-Mer International Journalism Festival, the Chief Justice of Canada recalled the importance of court decisions in our lives.

A few minutes before our meeting, Supreme Court Chief Justice Richard Wagner spoke to a packed auditorium and previewed some of the information released more formally 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 Judge 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 Quebec^⁠1.

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.

Democratizing access to justice

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, in reading a decision written by a judge. It’s quite daunting. 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. An example: “the case in brief”, a popular summary of the decisions of the highest court in the country, 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 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 must meet these needs, so we decided to support them in their approach rather than telling them that the procedure is not compliant. »

These are just some of the changes Judge Wagner has instituted to make justice and information more accessible. “I continually think about ways to improve the system,” he insists.

Is justice “just”?

By talking with Richard Wagner, we realize to what extent 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 cause, but in both cases, dignity must always be present. Citizens are not expected 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 outcome, if dignity is respected, they will feel respected. This is why we must inform them well. »

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.

How can we understand that an individual guilty of fraud, for example, receives 10 years in prison while a sexual attacker can get away with a sentence of two years less a day? I don’t want to fall into simplistic analyses, but… it doesn’t seem very “fair” to me.

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 we provide for conditional releases 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.

Doubt as a driving force

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 are not robots,” he answers me. 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 did not 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 manage to doubt less?

“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…”

The hosting costs for this report were paid by the Carleton-sur-Mer International Journalism Festival, which had no right to review it.

1. Read an account of the Supreme Court decision in the “secret trial” case by Vincent Larouche

What do you think ? Participate in the dialogue