EDITORIAL: Justice system not above criticism

Article content

A country where the decisions of judges and prosecutors can never be criticized is a country that is not a democracy. 

Every Canadian citizen — not just politicians and media commentators — has the right to publicly agree or disagree with decisions made by judges and prosecutors. 

As long as they do not threaten their safety and are critical of their decisions, as opposed to personal attacks on those delivering them, they are legitimate forms of public expression and debate. 

Last week, the president of the Ontario Crown Attorneys’ Association said “attacks” by “politicians, media and members of the public” in the context of two high-profile criminal cases were “affronts to the rule of law.”

This was in reference to the Crown’s submissions for sentences for Freedom Convoy organizers Tamara Lich and Chris Barber on mischief charges, and the fallout from the acquittal of five former junior hockey players on charges of sexual assault. 

No doubt many agreed with Conservative  leader Pierre Poilievre, who tweeted on X in response to the Crown’s submission to sentence Lich and Barber to seven and eight years respectively: 

“Let’s get this straight: while rampant violent offenders are released hours after their most recent charges and antisemitic rioters vandalize businesses, terrorize daycares and block traffic without consequences, the Crown wants seven years prison time for the charge of mischief for Lich and Barber.” 

Poilievre’s tweet failed to note the final decision on sentencing will be made by a judge. 

Others will argue his argument is misguided. 

But it was hardly an attack on the rule of law. 

A similar controversy erupted in the wake of the decision by Ontario Superior Court Judge Maria Carroccia to acquit five former junior hockey plays of sexual assault in the Hockey Canada trial. 

Her ruling prompted public reactions from high praise to scathing criticism for the judge — much of it from lawyers  — but all of it fair comment, as long as it did not stoop to threats or attacks on the judge’s character. 

In our view, robust public debates about the decisions made in our courtrooms do not undermine the rule of law in Canada.  

To the contrary, they contribute to how our laws evolve over time and are a measure of our commitment to democracy.