Skip to Content Subscribe Our Offers My Account Manage My Subscriptions FAQ Newsletters Canada Canadian True Crime Canadian Politics Health World Israel & Middle East Financial Post NP Comment Longreads Puzzmo Diversions Comics NP News Quiz New York Times Crossword Horoscopes Life Eating & Drinking Style Sponsored Play for Ontario Travel Travel Canada Travel USA Travel International Cruises Travel Essentials Culture Books Celebrity Movies Music Theatre Television Business Essentials Advice Lives Told Tails Told Shopping Buy Canadian Home Living Outdoor Living Kitchen & Dining Tech Style & Beauty Personal Care Entertainment & Hobbies Gift Guide Travel Guide Amazon Prime Day Deals Savings National Post Store More Sports Hockey Baseball Basketball Football Soccer Golf Tennis Driving Vehicle Research Reviews News Gear Guide Obituaries Place an Obituary Place an In Memoriam Classifieds Place an Ad Celebrations Working Business Ads Archives Healthing Epaper Manage Print Subscription Profile Settings My Subscriptions Saved Articles My Offers Newsletters Customer Service FAQ Newsletters Canada World Financial Post NP Comment Longreads Puzzmo Diversions Life Shopping Epaper Manage Print Subscription HomeNP CommentColby Cosh: The chief justice of Canada isn't biased — he said so!Richard Wagner won't comment on his refusal to recuse himself from a convoy-related case after calling the trucker protest 'deplorable'Last updated 32 minutes ago You can save this article by registering for free here. Or sign-in if you have an account.Chief Justice of Canada Richard Wagner participates in a press conference to update Canadians on the work of the Supreme Court of Canada and to answer questions from journalists in Ottawa on Tuesday, June 9, 2026. Photo by HYUNGCHEOL PARK/PostmediaYesterday the chief justice of Canada held his annual June press conference on Parliament Hill. CBC News’s coverage of the event focused, perhaps foreseeably, on Richard Wagner’s concerns for the delicate mental health of the under-resourced Canadian judiciary. For those seeking contrast, the Post’s tireless Chris Nardi offers a fuller overview, helpfully mentioning the questions Wagner declined to answer.Enjoy the latest local, national and international news.Exclusive articles by Conrad Black, Barbara Kay and others. Plus, special edition NP Platformed and First Reading newsletters and virtual events.Unlimited online access to National Post.National Post ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition to view on any device, share and comment on.Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword.Support local journalism.Enjoy the latest local, national and international news.Exclusive articles by Conrad Black, Barbara Kay and others. Plus, special edition NP Platformed and First Reading newsletters and virtual events.Unlimited online access to National Post.National Post ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition to view on any device, share and comment on.Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword.Support local journalism.Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience.Access articles from across Canada with one account.Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments.Enjoy additional articles per month.Get email updates from your favourite authors.Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience.Access articles from across Canada with one accountShare your thoughts and join the conversation in the commentsEnjoy additional articles per monthGet email updates from your favourite authorsSign In or Create an AccountorThe judge, perhaps most notably, refused to contribute anything further when asked about his refusal to step aside from the appeal — filed by the Attorney General in March but not yet granted leave by the Supreme Court — of the Federal Court’s condemnation of the February 2022 invocation of the Emergencies Act.This newsletter from NP Comment tackles the topics you care about. (Subscriber-exclusive edition on Fridays)By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc.We encountered an issue signing you up. Please try againWe shall spare the reader our familiar regurgitation of the civil-liberties outrage that the federal government perpetrated in the face of the Freedom Convoy protests in Ottawa. We will instead content ourselves with pointing out the comic irony here: Wagner faced demands to recuse himself from the prospective appeal partly because of remarks he made in this same annual press conference in 2022. At that time, four months after the Emergencies Act briefly crashed down on a country almost entirely at peace, our egomaniac chief justice had not yet learned the virtues of strategic silence, freely denouncing the protests as a “deplorable” product of “disinformation” that should “never happen again.”Well, you know, I am willing to say, as I always have, that I’m about 75 per cent in agreement with the chief on this. He spoke out against the convoy protests on this and on other occasions in 2022 because he apparently considered obstructive and annoying street protest to be a threat to the rule of law — a “budding of anarchy.” From your lips to God’s ears, one might retort: would that this Wagner Doctrine were applied consistently by the law and its servants!But the issue in the Emergencies Act litigation is the much more grievous sin committed by the federal cabinet in response to the protests, which did no permanent harm anyone can specify. Two courts have now said that the act was invoked illegally, contrary to its own very clear criteria, and that the consequent suspension of parliamentary government and civil liberties by panicky nincompoops is a something, a something of obvious and incalculable importance, that should never happen again.When potential parties to the Emergencies Act appeal petitioned Wagner to recuse himself from any future Supreme Court deliberations, he responded — through the registrar of the court — by falling back on this distinction. “Chief Justice Wagner,” the registrar’s letter read, “has advised that he did not, at any time, either directly or indirectly, comment on the Emergencies Act … or matters at issue in the proceedings.”Well, golly: not even indirectly? The severity of the protests and their immediate potential threat to the state have in fact been central “matters at issue” in the Emergencies Act litigation; one might even say they are the crux of the whole thing.If you read up on the “reasonable apprehension of bias” test that judges are supposed to apply to themselves when questions like these come up, you will notice that there’s a paradox inside it. The fundamental rule that Wagner is supposed to apply is that justice will not only be done, but be seen to be done; this is a very strict standard that Wagner’s (completely gratuitous) comments on the protests obviously activates. But it’s also true that the judiciary doesn’t want to encourage frivolous judge-shopping. Claims of bias are, in general, easily contrived, and could snarl up the system.One natural conclusion is that the standard for a “reasonable apprehension of bias” should be a great deal stricter when there is no prospect whatsoever of systemic harm to the provision of justice. Isn’t that the case here? We have a nine-member Supreme Court; do we really need all nine pairs of hands at the tiller to comb over the work of the two courts who have already found that the government illegally despoiled the Constitution?Why is it important that the chief justice, in particular, be involved here? Tuesday’s press conference was mostly devoted to problems of judges being overworked: why is Wagner determined not to take a little vacation? His answer to the recusal petition has done nothing but increase my “apprehension of bias,” reasonable or not, to migraine-inducing levels.National Post Join the Conversation This website uses cookies to personalize your content (including ads), and allows us to analyze our traffic. Read more about cookies here. By continuing to use our site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.