The Supreme Court of Canada has become a strange place. A bronze bust of Chief Justice Richard Wagner has appeared in the entrance foyer of the Supreme Court building in Ottawa. It is disturbing that whoever donated this bronze bust is anonymous, and wants to remain so, according to court officials. No one at the court knows how much the bronze bust cost—although the sculptor, Jean-Pierre Busque, indicated in an interview that he usually charges $18,000 for a bust like Wagner’s. Why the secrecy over this donation to the court? Who is paying for this bust, and for what purpose?
There is a serious concern about this donation, as it gives rise to the question of whether it was made to provide an advantage (favouritism) in a future Supreme Court case? If the court is now open to receiving donations, then, for what reason are they being offered, i.e. who benefits? Shouldn’t information about donations be open to public scrutiny?
What we do know about the bronze bust is that it is at least one of two in existence. The other one, apparently, resides in the offices of Wagner’s former Quebec law firm, Lavery, a firm that doesn’t hide its claim to be a “seedbed of judges”. Did Wagner’s former law firm pay for this bust? If so, was it to promote or advertise the firm’s connection to the Chief Justice?
Leaving aside the question of the propriety of having a bronze bust of any sitting Chief Justice located at the entrance to the Court, there is the more problematic question of the ethics of having such a questionable object “donated” anonymously. What is being hidden from the public? There is absolutely no excuse for not revealing the name of the person who funded the bronze bust. The Supreme Court itself, in 2009, in the case R v. Grant, raised the issue of “bringing the administration of justice into disrepute”. The latter is understood in the long‑term sense, to mean maintaining the integrity of, and public confidence in, the justice system.
Nothing brings the “administration of justice into disrepute” faster than secrecy and shady dealings. Hiding the identity of the donor of the bronze bust clearly raises serious questions of integrity and public confidence in the impartiality and independence of the justice system.
Anonymous gifts have no place in an ethically-centred justice system. The Canadian Judicial Council, established under the Judges Act, to maintain judicial standards, published Ethical Principles for Judges, which states:
[j]udicial independence is not the private right of judges but the foundation of judicial impartiality and a constitutional right of all Canadians. Independence of the judiciary refers to the necessary individual and collective or institutional independence required for impartial decisions and decision making.
Anonymous gifts that play upon the vanity of a judge, at the very least, open the door to the appearance of, if not actual, conflict of interest and bias.
The rule here is simple: if you can’t do something in the open light of day without raising the stench of corruption or unethical and/or questionable behaviour, you don’t do it. Period. That includes accepting anonymous gifts of any kind. Canada needs judges who are more concerned with being remembered for their jurisprudence—judgements characterized by righteousness and equity—rather than being remembered by vanity projects. In the current climate of government corruption, scandals, and continuing questions about the integrity of Canada’s democratic institutions, the refusal of the Supreme Court and its Chief Justice to be transparent speaks volumes about their own complicity in that corruption and scandals.