The Advocates’ Society, a voluntary association representing Canadian litigators, has criticized National Post journalist Janie Sarkonak for her recent coverage of the judiciary, continuing a dispute that began earlier this year with the Canadian Bar Association (CBA). Both lawyer groups have taken issue with Sarkonak’s commentary, accusing her of crossing appropriate boundaries by not only challenging judicial decisions but also questioning the judges themselves.
At the core of the controversy is Sarkonak’s analysis linking certain judges’ rulings to their prior activism as lawyers. She has been notably critical of trends such as racialized sentencing and the recognition of rights for individuals involved in drug-related crimes, suggesting these judicial approaches align with progressive activism. The Advocates’ Society president, Craig Ferris, conveyed his organization’s concerns in a letter to the editor-in-chief of the National Post. While acknowledging the essential role of journalism in fostering democratic debate, Ferris stated that the newspaper had published commentary falling “short of the standard of journalism that strengthens our democracy.” He specifically referenced Sarkonak’s articles, which he interpreted as personal attacks on judges, including calls for the removal of a judge from the bench. One case highlighted was B.C. Supreme Court Justice Catherine Murray, whom Sarkonak criticized for allegedly praising drug dealers identified as harm-reduction advocates.
The letter emphasized that while robust critique of court rulings and calls for appeals or legislative changes are acceptable, personal attacks on judges are not appropriate.
Defenders of Sarkonak argue that her reporting raises important questions regarding the judiciary’s impartiality, particularly the influence of a judge’s previous legal activism on their decisions from the bench. One source with experience on a federal judicial advisory committee (JAC) pointed out how changes implemented by the Trudeau government in 2016 affected the composition and ideological leaning of JACs. The modification replaced some lawyer representatives with members of the public chosen for their commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion, which some say has introduced a partisan dimension unfavorable to applicants lacking progressive views.
Supporters say Sarkonak’s work sheds light on a rarely discussed but significant issue—whether ideological biases impact judicial behavior—making her reporting a valuable contribution to democratic accountability.
Critics within the legal community, however, appear to claim exclusive authority in defining appropriate public discourse on the judiciary, a stance that some say risks alienating the public and undermining trust in legal institutions. Comments warning that legal associations should exercise greater restraint in their criticisms suggest ongoing tensions over who gets to shape the conversation about the courts’ role in Canadian democracy.
As the debate continues, questions remain about balancing journalistic freedom, fair treatment of judges, and the public’s right to scrutinize all branches of government.