CALGARY — Supreme Court nominee Glenn Joyal says judges must exercise extreme caution when speaking publicly and avoid comments that could undermine confidence in the judiciary, warning that private interactions with journalists can pose ethical risks.Testifying before the House of Commons Justice Committee, Joyal acknowledged concerns surrounding judges engaging with the media and said members of the judiciary must carefully weigh whether public remarks enhance or compromise the integrity of their office, according to reporting by Blacklock’s Reporter.“I think judges, chief justices, always have to be very calibrating,” Joyal told MPs and senators reviewing his nomination to Canada’s highest court.Joyal, who has served on Manitoba’s courts since 1998 and currently serves as Chief Justice of the Court of King’s Bench, was questioned by Saskatchewan Sen. Denise Batters about comments he made in his Supreme Court application questionnaire regarding his interactions with the media.Batters noted Joyal had written that he had participated in editorial board meetings and made himself available to reporters as part of his efforts to communicate with the public..Carney nominates Manitoba chief justice Glenn Joyal to Supreme Court.She said editorial board meetings are more commonly associated with politicians and government ministers than judges, and expressed concern about closed-door discussions that are not open to public scrutiny.Joyal agreed there are potential pitfalls.“There is a risk,” he said.“I think judges, chief justices, always have to be very calibrating in terms of how they decide, when they decide to speak out, and the forum in which they speak out.”Joyal said he often advised newly appointed judges to ask themselves whether a planned action or public statement would strengthen or weaken confidence in the judiciary.“The question was: Is what you’re about to do or what you’re about to say going to enhance or potentially compromise the procedure of the judicial office?” he testified.Applying that principle to media engagement, Joyal said the answer is not always straightforward and depends on the circumstances.“I think the chief justice or a judge has to be very clear about why they are doing it, the reason for the meeting, what it is they are hoping to achieve,” he said.“But that said, you are quite right. It is a potential danger and we have to be mindful of that.”The exchange comes amid ongoing controversy surrounding comments made by Chief Justice Richard Wagner during the 2022 Freedom Convoy protests.In an April 9, 2022 interview with the Québec newspaper Le Devoir, Wagner criticized convoy demonstrators, describing the protests as the “beginning of anarchy” and accusing participants of taking citizens hostage, despite no criminal charges being laid for either offence.Wagner has since faced criticism from some legal observers and politicians for not recusing himself from a Freedom Convoy-related appeal currently before the Supreme Court..LAWTON: It's government, not fake news, that's strangling Canadian democracy.Conservative MP Andrew Lawton raised the issue directly during Joyal’s appearance, asking how he would handle a situation in which a judge’s public comments created questions about impartiality.Joyal declined to discuss Wagner’s remarks specifically.“In respect of recusal, you are not asking me and I won’t comment on the Chief Justice’s comments,” he said.“I am honoured to be serving with him.”However, Joyal said the broader issue of judicial recusal is fundamental to maintaining public trust in the courts.“Recusal is a question that goes to the heart of what it is you would want in a judiciary,” he testified.“There is nothing more foundational, nothing more core than the idea that judges are neutral and impartial.”
