 |
| John L. Hill |
Not a week after polls closed and ballots were counted, Ontario Premier Doug Ford made his attack on the judiciary, and in so doing, he is sounding very Trump-like. The premier responded to a decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice Paul Schabas’s injunction that prevents the province from removing three major Toronto bike lanes until the decision can be tested on constitutional grounds (Cycle Toronto v. Ontario (Attorney General), 2025 ONSC 2424).
While the Ontario government has indicated it would appeal the restraining order, as it has every right to do, the premier’s attack on the judge who made the order is worrisome. The ruling said that despite the government’s claim that there was an urgent need to cut congestion, it failed to provide evidence about the process to remove the lanes or plans on what would go in their place. There was an urgency to block the dismantlement of the bike lanes to give the courts time to consider the constitutional challenge before the lanes would be permanently removed. Schabas wrote that not granting the pause would allow the government to dismantle the bike lanes before he has time to decide the case.
In what Ford called his “rant for the day,” he criticized Ontario judges for having “nothing better to do” but interfere with issues like Toronto’s bike lanes “because of their ideology.” Ford’s proposed solution to the problem of “bleeding-heart judges” that interfere with government decrees is to adopt a system used in parts of the United States, where judges are elected.
Ford’s latest tirade follows comments that critics argue suggest an attempt to politicize the judiciary. For instance, he has expressed frustration with what he calls “bleeding-heart judges” and has proposed appointing “tough-on-crime” judges who align with his views. Now he is floating the idea of electing judges, similar to the U.S. system, to hold them accountable, which some see as a move to introduce political influence into judicial appointments. Ford’s criticism of judges for decisions he perceives as ideologically driven is reminiscent of musings of the American president.
In Ford’s view, electing judges can bring democratic accountability, but it also carries several downsides that may undermine judicial independence and the rule of law. These concerns include:
1. Threat to judicial independence. Judges may cater to popular opinion rather than strictly applying the law, especially on controversial issues like criminal justice or civil rights. They may feel pressured to rule in ways that please voters or campaign donors rather than follow legal precedent or constitutional principles.
2. Influence of money in judicial elections. Campaigns require funding, and judges may accept donations from people who may appear before them in court. This creates conflicts of interest or at least the appearance of bias, undermining trust in impartial justice.
3. Politicization of the bench. Elections can turn judges into partisan figures, especially where parties endorse judicial candidates. This weakens the perception that courts are neutral arbiters and instead reinforces the view that judges are political actors.
4. Lower-quality or less qualified judges. Voters often know little about judicial candidates, leading to elections based on name recognition, party affiliation or ballot position. Highly qualified but politically independent or low-profile candidates may lose to those with better campaign skills or connections.
5. Short-term incentives. Elected judges may prioritize decisions that boost re-election chances rather than those rooted in long-term legal reasoning or precedent. For example, studies show elected judges tend to impose harsher sentences, especially in election years, to avoid appearing “soft on crime.”
6. Undermines public trust. Ironically, instead of increasing accountability, elections can reduce trust in judicial impartiality, as rulings may be seen as politically or financially motivated.
Throughout the last federal election, all parties supported Canadian values rather than American values. Let’s not let this populist view threaten our legal institutions now.2. Influence of money in judicial elections. Campaigns require funding, and judges may accept donations from people who may appear before them in court. This creates conflicts of interest or at least the appearance of bias, undermining trust in impartial justice.
3. Politicization of the bench. Elections can turn judges into partisan figures, especially where parties endorse judicial candidates. This weakens the perception that courts are neutral arbiters and instead reinforces the view that judges are political actors.
4. Lower-quality or less qualified judges. Voters often know little about judicial candidates, leading to elections based on name recognition, party affiliation or ballot position. Highly qualified but politically independent or low-profile candidates may lose to those with better campaign skills or connections.
5. Short-term incentives. Elected judges may prioritize decisions that boost re-election chances rather than those rooted in long-term legal reasoning or precedent. For example, studies show elected judges tend to impose harsher sentences, especially in election years, to avoid appearing “soft on crime.”
6. Undermines public trust. Ironically, instead of increasing accountability, elections can reduce trust in judicial impartiality, as rulings may be seen as politically or financially motivated.
John L. Hill practised and taught prison law until his retirement. He holds a J.D. from Queen’s and an LL.M. in constitutional law from Osgoode Hall. He is also the author of Pine Box Parole: Terry Fitzsimmons and the Quest to End Solitary Confinement (Durvile & UpRoute Books) and The Rest of the [True Crime] Story (AOS Publishing). The Rest of the [True Crime] Story has been shortlisted for a prestigious Brass Knuckles Award, which is the Crime Writers’ of Canada’s prize for best nonfiction crime book of the year. Contact him at johnlornehill@hotmail.com.
The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the author’s firm, its clients, Law360 Canada, LexisNexis Canada or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.
Interested in writing for us? To learn more about how you can add your voice to Law360 Canada, contact Analysis Editor Peter Carter at peter.carter@lexisnexis.ca or call 647-776-6740.