Debunking Myths
Myth# 1: Judges will rule in favour of the government that appointed them.
Canadian judges regularly rule against the governments that appoint them. Their duty is to the law, not the political party that selected them. Judges are expected to decide cases based on the facts and the law, even when that means ruling against the government.
History shows this happens often.
In January 2026, three judges of the Federal Court of Appeal unanimously found that the Trudeau government had violated the constitutional rights of participants in the Ottawa convoy protests. Two of those judges were appointed by Justin Trudeau’s government, while the third was named Chief Justice of that court by Justin Trudeau’s government. Despite all three judges of that court being appointed or elevated by Justin Trudeau, they unanimously ruled against his government.
The same pattern was seen under the last Conservative federal government. Between 2006 and 2015, then-Prime Minister Stephen Harper appointed seven justices to the Supreme Court of Canada. These judges regularly ruled against the federal government and struck down important pieces of the Harper government’s policy agenda, including laws relating to prostitution, medically assisted suicide, and criminal justice.
The reason is simple: Canadian judges are independent. They are not representatives of the governments that appoint them.
Myth #2: Federally appointed judges are weak on crime.
The overwhelming majority of criminal cases in Alberta are heard by provincially appointed judges.
All criminal cases begin in the Alberta Court of Justice, where judges are appointed by the provincial government. According to the Alberta Court of Justice website, 95% of those cases conclude in that court. In other words, only 5% of cases are handled by federally appointed judges.
This does not mean that provincially appointed judges are weak on crime. Judges appointed by the provincial government also make their decisions independent of political or government influence, and decide cases based on the law and the facts before them.
Claims that federally appointed judges are responsible for crime or public safety issues ignore the reality of how Alberta’s criminal justice system operates. Judges at all levels of court make their decisions on issues at bail, trial and sentencing based on the facts and the law.
Myth #3: Federally appointed judges are to blame for lax bail decisions.
Most bail decisions in Alberta are made by provincially appointed Justices of the Peace or Judges of the Court of Justice, not federally appointed judges.
Federally appointed judges hear appeals of those bail applications and also hear bail on a very small number of serious charges, including murder. The vast majority of initial bail hearings are handled at the Court of Justice level.
Court of Justice judges make their decisions in accordance with criminal law and the constitution. Individuals facing criminal charges at the bail stage are presumed innocent and have a constitutional right not to be denied reasonable bail without just cause.
In January 2026, Premier Danielle Smith said on her weekly radio show that she wishes she could “direct the judges” and complained that the problem with bail decisions in our province is that Alberta only “chooses” judges at the lower court level.
The provincial government does not “choose” judges. Rather, they appoint them after candidates are considered by a non-partisan committee which includes members of the judiciary, legal profession, and the public. She also cannot direct the judges nor should she be able to, because judges are vested with judicial independence and their positions protected to ensure they can make decisions based on the facts and the law alone.
Myth #4: It is undemocratic to have unelected judges.
Premier Danielle Smith regularly refers to judges as “unelected” without explaining that virtually all Western democracies appoint judges rather than elect them. The United States is one of the few jurisdictions where some judges are elected.
Judges in Canada are appointed and given job security until they reach a particular age, typically 75 years of age. Judges cannot be removed at the whim of the government and can only have their jobs taken from them for serious misconduct. This is because a judge must be able to make decisions objectively, based on the facts and the law, and free from political influence or the fear of losing their job.
Judges also have to make decisions that may not be popular, but are correct in law. For instance, a judge may find that there is insufficient evidence to convict a person that most of the public believes is guilty. If a judge is concerned about being voted out of office, they may be tempted to make a different decision to appease potential voters.
An independent judiciary is not undemocratic. It is one of the safeguards that protects democracy by ensuring that governments, like citizens, must follow the law. Individuals who come before the courts must be confident that their case will be decided fairly, free from political pressure and public sentiment.
