Recently, the law societies across Canada came together to launch Ours to Protect, a national campaign to raise awareness about the importance of the rule of law. In Canada, when we talk about threats to the rule of law, we tend to glance nervously at chaos in other countries, especially the United States. The United States has provided a dramatic study in how quickly respect for legal norms can erode. The Trump White House openly vilified judges who ruled against it – accusing them of abusing their powers and even suggesting they be impeached or prosecuted. Some years back, the same president incited an attack on Congress itself. It was a stark reminder that even free societies can teeter when their leaders flout the rule of law.
In Canada, the uncomfortable truth, subtly evident in the recent law societies’ campaigns, is that our own rule of law faces growing challenges – quieter, perhaps, but deeply corrosive. Politicians are steadily eroding the foundations of judicial independence and legal integrity, often abetted (or at least not checked) by those who should know better – including lawyers and even Attorneys General. It’s happening in courtrooms and legislatures across the country, with some prominent leaders bending, rather than defending, the rule of law.
Politicians vs. the Courts and Lawyers
One alarming trend is the politicization of the justice system. Consider these examples: In 2018, MP Shannon Stubbs denounced the appointment of a respected lawyer John Norris to the Federal Court – because he had once represented a controversial client, Omar Khadr. More recently, Manitoba Premier Wab Kinew ousted MLA Mark Wasyliw from his caucus because a lawyer in Wasyliw’s law firm represents a reviled businessman, Peter Nygård.
In a country governed by rule of law, these moves send a dangerous message. Our Charter guarantees every accused person the right to legal counsel; by vilifying lawyers for the clients they represent, we undermine that fundamental principle, and the rule of law.
Politicians have also meddled in ongoing court cases. In Ontario, after Umar Zameer, accused in the death of a police officer was granted bail in 2021, Premier Doug Ford publicly blasted the judge’s decision as “completely unacceptable”, and Toronto’s then-mayor John Tory (a lawyer who should know better) called it “questionable”. Politicians should not interfere with cases before the courts. There’s even a term for it: the sub judice rule. The reason is simple: such comments risk prejudicing a fair trial or pressuring judges to rule a certain way. Umar Zameer was eventually acquitted by a jury, underscoring how misguided that political grandstanding was.
From Rhetoric to Legislation: Escalating Attacks on Judicial Independence
Meddling in specific cases is bad enough, but worse is when politicians launch broad attacks on the judiciary itself. Recently, Premier Ford went on a tirade against those he called “terrible, bleeding-heart judges” who, in his view, are “too soft on crime” and “overruling” his government. He even mused about electing judges (U.S.-style), deriding judicial independence as “a joke” and offering to pay judges to retire early. For Canadians who believe in an independent judiciary, hearing a premier mock these principles was deeply troubling.
Threats to the rule of law aren’t only coming from heated rhetoric – some are now coded into law. In Alberta, the government enacted the Alberta Sovereignty Within a United Canada Act, empowering the province to ignore any federal law it unilaterally deems unconstitutional. In other words, politicians gave themselves the power to decide constitutionality – a role reserved for the courts. Former Alberta premier Jason Kenney called the Act a “full-frontal attack on the rule of law”. And there sits the Act, like a keg of gunpowder, waiting to ignite a constitutional crisis that could undermine the balance of legal authority between two levels of government.
A striking recent example of political overreach threatening judicial independence emerged in Alberta Referendum Litigation (Chief Electoral Officer of Alberta v Sylvestre 2025 ABKB 712). Midway through an active litigation seeking to determine the legality of a proposed referendum, the Alberta legislature introduced Bill 14, a retroactive statute aimed at repealing the very provisions under which the suit was brought. Its intended effect was immediate: to terminate the proceedings and shield the government from judicial scrutiny. The move was so brazen that even the referendum’s chief proponent who stood to benefit from the legislation, wrote to the court expressing concern that “the Legislature is interfering in a duly convened judicial process.”
The Alberta Court of King’s Bench responded with an extraordinary rebuke. In language rarely seen in Canadian jurisprudence, Justice Colin Feasby decried the government’s maneuver as “the antithesis of the stable, predictable, and ordered society that the rule of law contemplates”, a targeted attempt to “silence the Court” [para 250] and thwart constitutional adjudication. The judge underscored how such interference undermines values like transparency, reason-giving, and access to justice.
Refusing to be legislated into silence, the Court issued its ruling anyway. It affirmed that reasoned decisions are not merely judicial formalities – they are democratic imperatives. Courts are not adversaries of the legislature, but constitutional actors tasked with safeguarding legality. The Referendum Case thus stands as a constitutional sentinel: a vivid warning of what is lost when governments treat legal accountability as a nuisance to be repealed.
Lawyers and Attorneys General: Guardians or Co-Conspirators?
Behind most of these examples, there were lawyers in the room – some of whom hold the title Attorney General or Justice Minister. These roles are not mere political appointments; they carry a constitutional duty to uphold the rule of law, even in the face of political pressure.
While some lawyers in government have excused these threats – such as Ontario’s AG publicly downplaying (rather than repudiating) Premier Ford’s attacks on the judiciary – others have shown that principled resistance is possible. Former federal Attorney General Jody Wilson-Raybould set a precedent during the SNC-Lavalin scandal, refusing to bend to then Prime Minister Trudeau’s political interference in a criminal prosecution, ultimately resigning rather than compromise her role as guardian of prosecutorial independence.
This is the standard to which Attorneys General should be held. Their duty to the law means offering candid advice, objecting when proposals cross constitutional lines, and sometimes speaking out publicly to defend the rule of law – especially when it is under attack from within.
Ours To Protect
Ultimately, politicians come and go, but the rule of law must endure. It is an inalienable asset we’ve inherited from those who fought to build a society governed by laws. If we allow short-term political games to erode it, we risk losing something fundamental that will be hard to rebuild.
That’s why the recent national campaign launched by Canada’s law societies is so timely and vital. At a time when public trust in institutions is eroding and legal norms are under pressure, this initiative reminds us that the rule of law isn’t just a legal abstraction – it is what safeguards fairness, accountability, and justice for all. Lawyers, judges, politicians and citizens alike have a shared responsibility to protect it.
The current threats to rule of law in Canada do not yet amount to a constitutional crisis – and if we act now, they never will. Politicians must show restraint by respecting judicial independence, respecting the role of lawyers who defend unpopular clients, and remembering that no one is above the law. The rule of law remains the bedrock of a free society.
___
Dr. Gideon Christian is law professor and university research chair at the University of Calgary.
The post The Political Threat to the Rule of Law in Canada appeared first on Slaw.