Collin May: Shame on lawyer associations for trying to silence criticism of courts

It seems some of my colleagues in the legal profession just can’t help themselves. The Advocates’ Society, a voluntary association of Canadian litigators, has come out swinging against National Post journalist Jamie Sarkonak. This comes on the heels of a statement earlier this year by the Canadian Bar Association (CBA), yet another voluntary lawyers’ organization, which took Sarkonak to task for her coverage of the judiciary.

Sign In or Create an Account

Sarkonak’s transgression, according to both the CBA and now the Advocates’ Society, is that she not only criticized judicial decisions, but that she chastised the judges who made those decisions. Specifically, she tied their rulings from the bench to their past activism as lawyers. Sarkonak argued that the judges’ current penchant for racialized sentencing, consistent with past activism, and creating protected rights for drug dealing criminals, are deserving of public scrutiny.  

Columnist Jesse Kline keeps you up to date with what’s happening in Israel and the effects of antisemitism on life here in Canada. Friday mornings.

By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc.

A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it, please check your junk folder.

The next issue of Channel Israel will soon be in your inbox.

We encountered an issue signing you up. Please try again

When the CBA targeted Sarkonak back in April 2026, I waded into the fray, defending her journalistic freedom. And now we’re back again.

On this go-around, the Advocates’ Society president, Craig Ferris, wrote a letter to the National Post’s editor-in-chief. The letter opens with the usual concessions about the role journalism plays in our democracy and the importance of public debate over court decisions.

However, it goes on to state that “the National Post has recently published a spate of commentary that falls short of the standard of journalism that strengthens our democracy.” Ferris follows this assertion with the evidence, complaining that an unnamed but clearly intended Sarkonak had the temerity to attack individual judges, even “calling for one judge’s removal from the bench.” In the most recent case, that of B.C. Supreme Court Justice Catherine Murray, Sarkonak highlighted her praise of drug dealers she identified as harm reduction activists.

The letter rambles on a bit further, wrapping up with the contention that, “Reasoned, passionate criticism of court decisions is appropriate. So is calling for a decision to be appealed or reversed by legislation. A personal attack on a judge is not.”

I have a few points of disagreement with my colleagues, but I’ll focus on two that stand out for me. Let’s begin with the Advocates’ Society’s rather bald declaration that these criticisms “fall short of the standard of journalism that strengthens our democracy.” Apart from questioning what credentials a voluntary association of lawyers has to determine the “standard of journalism,” Sarkonak’s critiques do raise an important issue for our democracies.

In her articles, she ties the judges’ current decisions to their past activism. As a lawyer who spent five years on a judicial advisory committee (JAC) tasked with reviewing candidates for federal judicial appointments, I can attest that the connection between a judge’s decisions on the bench and their former ideological commitments raises some concerns.

The federal government revels in telling Canadians that the judicial selection process is non-partisan and independent. However, as I’ve argued before, the Trudeau government injected ideology into the process in 2016 when it replaced the federal justice minister’s three representatives on the seven-person JACs with members of the public chosen for their commitment to diversity, equity and inclusion.

As a result, the JACs tipped rather noticeably towards a partisan agenda that makes it remarkably difficult for judicial applicants who do not share the Liberals’ progressive dogma to run the ideological gauntlet of the selection process.

Sarkonak’s insightful, and I would argue highly thoughtful articles, shine a light on this sadly neglected problem. In doing so, she is providing a rare and important service to our democracy.

This brings me to my second point. The Advocates’ Society’s letter contends that Sarkonak’s journalism and her alleged lack of standards fail to strengthen our democracy. Given what I’ve already said, it should be clear that I fundamentally disagree with that view. However, what bothers me is that our esteemed advocates appear to believe that they have a monopoly on knowing what is good and bad for our democracy, especially the role of the courts in that democracy.

Sadly, this is a temptation to which many in the legal community succumb. My fellow lawyers, often more than the judges they defend, are inclined to believe that only we have the expertise to comment on the appropriate role of the judiciary in a democracy. That the CBA and the Advocates’ Society have taken this path while also lecturing the press only serves to erode public confidence in our country’s legal institutions. In a democracy, all the players have a right to critique and comment on all our institutions.

If I were to give some advice to those current judges whose resumes I once reviewed, it would be to discreetly tell these legal associations to be a bit more measured in their own criticisms, lest they bring the bench into disrepute.

National Post

This website uses cookies to personalize your content (including ads), and allows us to analyze our traffic. Read more about cookies here. By continuing to use our site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.