Chief Justice Richard Wagner has declined to step aside from potential Supreme Court proceedings tied to the federal government’s use of the Emergencies Act during the 2022 Freedom Convoy protest, rejecting arguments that his past public comments create a reasonable apprehension of bias.In a letter sent to parties Wednesday, Supreme Court registrar Chantal Carbonneau said Wagner concluded there was no legal basis requiring his recusal.“I am writing to advise that Chief Justice Wagner has considered the certificates and letter, and has concluded that there is no actual or reasonable apprehension of bias that would require his recusal under the applicable legal test,” Carbonneau wrote.She added that Wagner “did not, at any time, either directly or indirectly, comment on the Emergencies Act … or matters at issue in the proceedings.”The request to recuse was filed in March by the Canadian Frontline Nurses and one of its members, Kristen Nagle, who argued that remarks Wagner made about the convoy protests in 2022 could undermine public confidence in judicial impartiality.The applicants are involved in a related request for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Canada. Separately, the federal government has asked the top court to review lower court rulings that found Ottawa’s use of the Emergencies Act to end the protests was unjustified..At issue were comments Wagner made in 2022 describing the demonstrations as the “start of anarchy” and stating that participants had taken Ottawa residents “hostage.” In an interview with the Montreal-based newspaper Le Devoir, Wagner also said some demonstrators were “remote-controlled” and expressed concern about what he characterized as a misunderstanding of Canadian law.In June 2022, Wagner described the impact of the blockades on Ottawa residents, particularly vulnerable individuals, as “deplorable.”In their submission, Canadian Frontline Nurses and Nagle argued the comments “could reasonably be perceived as expressing negative bias against the protesters and may undermine public confidence in judicial impartiality,” adding it would be “inappropriate” for Wagner to take part in proceedings related to the case.Wagner also declined a separate request to invite submissions from all parties on whether he should sit on the panel.Lawyer Alexander Boissonneau-Lehner, who represents the applicants, said it would be inappropriate to comment further while the matter remains before the court, but noted they had hoped for a broader process.“We had hoped for a process from the court inviting submissions not only from us but also from other parties,” he said.Toronto lawyer Jared Brown also weighed in on the decision in a post on X, writing: “There is considerable hand wringing in Canadian establishment circles about the loss of faith in institutions. This is usually attributed to some vague mythical populist campaign against these institutions. The truth is that the institutions are doing it to themselves.”Wagner’s decision contrasts with a separate case involving Quebec’s secularism law, known as Bill 21, where Justice Mahmud Jamal allowed parties to make submissions on whether he should participate before ultimately stepping aside due public concerns regarding his Muslim background.The Supreme Court has not yet decided whether it will hear the appeals related to the federal government’s use of the Emergencies Act.
