Law360 Canada (January 9, 2026, 3:12 PM EST) -- Quebec Court of Appeal Justice Marie-Josée Hogue is retiring Feb. 1, 2026, from her full-time job on the federal bench — one day before starting work on Feb. 2 as deputy minister of justice and deputy attorney general of Canada, Law360 Canada has learned.

On Jan. 7, 2026, the Quebec Court of Appeal confirmed by email, in response to our repeated requests, that the judge remains a full-time member of its bench — about which there had been some public questions and confusion. The court also disclosed for the first time the date of her forthcoming retirement.

Law360 Canada sought the clarifications after Prime Minister Mark Carney’s surprise announcement on Dec. 19, 2025, that Justice Hogue would become federal deputy minister of justice and deputy attorney general of Canada “early in the new year.”

On that day, the prime minister described her as a Quebec Court of Appeal judge (in the present tense); the Appeal Court said only, in a press release titled “Departure of Justice Marie-Josée Hogue,” that she “has decided to retire from her position as judge”; while the court told Law360 Canada — when asked whether the judge had retired and, if so, on what date — that she “is no longer on the court’s rolls and all measures have been taken to ensure judicial independence is preserved. The court will not comment any further on this matter.”

Pressed for clarification, Michaël Poutré, senior legal counsel with the office of Chief Justice of Quebec Manon Savard, said by email on Jan. 7, “Further to your request, Justice Marie‑Josée Hogue has authorized me … to inform you that she will cease to perform her functions as a judge of the Quebec Court of Appeal, effective Feb. 1, 2026.”

The judge’s impending move from the federal judicial branch of government to a senior post within the executive branch is unprecedented in recent memory, according to scholars contacted by Law360 Canada.

“We are not aware of a member of the judiciary being appointed as deputy minister of justice and deputy attorney general of Canada in recent history,” Pierre-Alain Bujold, a spokesperson for the Privy Council Office said.

The news that Justice Hogue agreed, while on the bench, to become a deputy minister sparked immediate questions within the legal community related to judicial independence and her current status and work as a judge.

“A federally appointed judge becoming a deputy minister and deputy AG? (Or at least someone who is described and listed as still part of the court?) This would seem to give rise to questions relating to section 55 of the Judges Act, judicial independence?” University of Ottawa law professor Amy Salyzyn, the president of the Canadian Association for Legal Ethics, posted on LinkedIn on Dec. 19.

(Section 55 of the Judges Act requires judges to devote themselves exclusively to their judicial duties and bars any other occupation or business.)

Poutré told Law360 Canada on Jan. 7, 2026, that Justice Hogue “has been removed from the court’s hearing docket and has ceased participating in cases that are currently under advisement.”

“None of these cases involved the federal government,” Poutré added. “She is currently taking the necessary steps to close up her office.”

The Appeal Court would not say how many cases that Justice Hogue participated in are under reserve or how many, if any, will need to be reheard due to her departure.

Poutré reiterated the Appeal Court’s Dec. 19 statement to Law360 Canada that “the Court of Appeal has taken all necessary measures to ensure that judicial independence is preserved and to avoid any appearance of conflict of interests.”

The Court of Appeal declined to specify what those measures are, or to answer related questions such as when did Justice Hogue begin discussing with federal officials her potential move from the judicial to the executive branch of government, and did she participate in any cases involving federal government entities or the federal Crown during that period?

Poutré replied that the court will not comment further.

At press time, Justice Hogue had not replied to these questions and others that Law360 Canada sent to her email addresses.

The order in council for the judge’s new job as deputy minister states that, effective Feb. 2, 2026, she will hold office “during pleasure,” with a salary between $319,600 and $375,900.

The judge will take a pay cut, as she currently earns $414,900 as a judge, while contributing to a defined-benefit, two-thirds-salary federal judicial annuity. Despite leaving the bench too early to qualify for a full pension, she qualified last June for a reduced judicial annuity because she had served 10 years on the bench and is at least 55 years old.

Law360 Canada contacted a number of jurists with expertise in legal ethics to learn what considerations might apply when a judge moves directly from the federal bench to a senior role within the federal public service.

Western University law professor Stephen Pitel, a board member of the Canadian Association for Legal Ethics, highlighted Commentary 5.E.1 in the Canadian Judicial Council’s (advisory only) Ethical Principles for Judges.

Under the rubric “Post-Judicial Careers,” the commentary states: “Judges may choose to move on to another career after leaving the bench. This raises several ethical considerations. One issue relates to the situation of judges prior to departure from judicial office. There may well be circumstances in which planning for one’s post-judicial career undermines the perception of impartiality a judge should maintain. Discussions, negotiations or proposals of employment with a law firm, a prospective employer who is a litigant before the judge or a party in a case where the judge has delivered a judgment, may create the impression of a conflict of interest. The same concern exists where a judge is soliciting such opportunities. Whether the overture comes from the judge or the prospective employer, there is a risk that the judge’s self-interest and duty would appear to conflict in the eyes of a reasonable and informed person. Accordingly, judges should refrain from engaging in such conversations before their judicial term has come to an end.”

The commentary’s words that judges “should refrain from engaging” in such conversations before they leave the bench is “fairly directive, rather than suggestive,” Pitel said.

“So what conversations, and when, happened between [the judge] and the government?” he asked. “Did she hear any cases or have any reserve decisions involving the government during that period?”

Pitel summed up: “The approach in the commentary is: retire first, then look for a new job.”

The Ethical Principles also say there are “limits” on what jurists do after they retire from the bench, which may be relevant. For example, the federal deputy attorney general is often named as the solicitor of record in cases in which the federal government is a litigant.

Commentary 5.E.2 of the Ethical Principles states (in part) that: “Former judges are able to return to the legal profession, but there are limits to the types of activities in which they can engage, consistent with the preservation of the principle of impartiality. … While it is appropriate for former judges to review or draft legal arguments and pleadings, to provide advice to counsel and parties, a former judge should not stand, speak or appear as counsel in court or before a tribunal or sign legal documents that are or may be the subject of proceedings before a court or tribunal. This constraint may be subject to exceptions where a judge has left the judiciary after a very short time.”

Pitel noted that once a jurist leaves the bench, by retiring or resigning, any complaint about their alleged conduct while still on the bench would not be considered by the Canadian Judicial Council (CJC).

“But that does not mean there is no point in asking the questions,” he said, expressing a view echoed by others.

(The CJC declined to say whether there has been any complaint involving Justice Hogue since the prime minister’s Dec. 19, 2025, announcement of her upcoming new job. “As a general rule, it is only at the decision stage of a review panel, if one is set up, that a complaint will be confirmed and revealed,” Krista Ferraro, the CJC’s director of communications and strategic issues management, said by email.)

Gavin MacKenzie of Toronto’s MacKenzie Barristers, a former treasurer of Ontario’s Law Society and an expert on professional responsibility and liability issues for practitioners and the courts, told Law360 Canada Justice Hogue “was a respected, ethical counsel who became a respected Appeal Court judge. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, she is entitled to a presumption that she has acted ethically.”

“For a judge to become a senior official in the executive branch is extremely unusual, however, and naturally raises questions about the important principle of judicial impartiality,” MacKenzie added. “The Crown in right of Canada is one of the most frequent parties to litigation.”

Pointing to a statement in the Ethical Principles for Judges that "there may well be circumstances in which planning for one's post-judicial career undermines the perception of impartiality a judge should maintain," MacKenzie said “Justice Hogue's situation may not fall within the Principles' admonition that in some circumstances judges should refrain from engaging in such conversations.”

However, he expressed concern about the “lack of transparency concerning the process that culminated in Justice Hogue’s appointment as deputy attorney general and deputy minister of justice.”

MacKenzie said the statements last month from the Court of Appeal for Quebec that Justice Hogue “is no longer on the court’s rolls,” that she “has decided to retire” and that “all measures have been taken to ensure judicial independence is preserved” raised more questions at the time than they answered, i.e., had the judge actually retired or just “decided to retire”?

“If the former, when did she retire?” he asked. “When was she removed from the court’s rolls?” he queried, noting the court’s website shows her still as a judge. “When did she last preside in the Court of Appeal? Was the Crown in right of Canada a party?”

Asked MacKenzie: What measures were taken by the Appeal Court and the judge to ensure that judicial independence is preserved?

“To simply assert that all measures were taken, especially in combination with an assertion that the court would not be commenting further, is to prevent scrutiny of the adequacy of the measures,” he said. “It amounts to the court saying ‘trust us.’”

MacKenzie added that “it may well be the case that there is no reason for concern here. The problem is that members of the public do not have the information necessary to assess whether that is the case.”

University of Alberta constitutional and administrative law professor Gerard Kennedy, who studies courts and the rule of law, said it is not novel for a deputy minister to become a judge but “I’ve never seen an example of a judge becoming a deputy minister.”

Justice Hogue’s continuing status as a judge should have been clarified when her impending move was announced, if only because “we have to know who are the judges of the Court of Appeal of Quebec,” he said. “There is an opacity there that is concerning. … The public has a reasonable expectation of knowing.”

Initial reactions expressed within the legal community on LinkedIn on Dec. 19, after the prime minister announced Justice Hogue’s new post, ranged from high praise for Justice Hogue’s qualifications to surprise, if not shock.

“This needs to be a story in the Globe. Just an unprecedented move, with a lot of thorny ethical issues attached,” commented Jordan Furlong, an Ottawa legal analyst and forecaster. “At the very least, I’d want to know who she consulted or informed of her consideration or acceptance of the role. I mean, I have no doubt she’ll do an excellent job as DMJ. And I suppose I have to give Carney credit for thinking waaaay outside the box. But this is no small matter.”

Alison Crawford of Ottawa’s Good Yarn Communications, an ex-CBC journalist and former senior strategic communications advisor to Chief Justice of Canada Richard Wagner, posted: “I am speechless.”

“Very odd,” commented Jean-Simon Schoenholz, a litigator with Norton Rose Fulbright in Montreal.

John Trueman, a litigator with Vancouver’s Allen/McMillian Litigation Counsel, quoted from Commentary 5.E.1 of the Ethical Principles for Judges, which he suggested expressly addressed the situation. “Did she resign without telling anyone?” he queried.

Simon Potter, of Montreal’s Consultation Simon Potter Inc., hailed Justice Hogue’s upcoming new role: “I celebrate Mr. Carney’s decision and I celebrate hers, and thank everyone who was involved,” said Potter, a former president of the Canadian Bar Association.

“Marie-Josée Hogue has served Canadians very well and now has agreed to go on serving them in a new capacity, in a role demanding the very qualities which she has,” Potter wrote on LinkedIn. “We have been lucky and will now continue to be lucky. Yes, it is unusual for judges to go into government but rarity does not mean it should not happen.”

The Chief Justice of Quebec Manon Savard said in the Quebec Court of Appeal’s Dec. 19 press release that, as one of only a handful of lawyers to be appointed directly from practice to the appellate court, Justice Hogue “quickly put her undeniable legal skills to work for the benefit of litigants.”

“Versatile and pragmatic, she used clear language to move the law forward in the many cases she heard over the past decade,” Chief Justice Savard said. “The court will miss her considerable legal skills and keen sense of collegiality. Her colleagues and I are confident that, in this new role, she will continue to serve the public brilliantly, as always.”

Photo of Chief Justice of Quebec Manon Savard: Courtesy Quebec Court of Appeal

If you have any information, story ideas or news tips for Law360 Canada, please contact Cristin Schmitz at cristin.schmitz@lexisnexis.ca or call 613-820-2794.