The legal profession's defence of courts is vital as public confidence in the justice system faces new challenges
In recent months, two landmark court decisions – the Cowichan Aboriginal title ruling in British Columbia and the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Attorney General of Quebec v. Senneville – have ignited fierce public debate and political controversy. These cases, though distinct in subject matter, underscore a fundamental truth: courts are often called upon to make difficult, sometimes unpopular, determinations that test the resilience of our justice system and the public’s commitment to the rule of law.
Yet once these rulings are released, courts themselves cannot enter the public arena to defend their decisions against political or popular backlash. That responsibility falls to the legal profession. Lawyers must step forward to explain, defend, and uphold the rule of law – especially when it is under attack – ensuring that public confidence in our justice system is not eroded by political expediency or misinformation.
Difficult decisions at the heart of justice
The Cowichan ruling, issued by the BC Supreme Court in August 2025, recognized the Cowichan Tribes’ Aboriginal title to over 5.7 square kilometres of land in Richmond, BC – land that includes private homes, businesses, and government property. The decision declared Crown and city titles “defective and invalid,” suspended its effect for 18 months, and called for good-faith negotiations among all parties. The ruling has generated anxiety among homeowners, prompted banks to reconsider financing, and sparked a province-wide debate about the sanctity of private property and the future of reconciliation.
Meanwhile, in Senneville, the Supreme Court of Canada struck down mandatory minimum one-year sentences for possessing and accessing child pornography, finding them unconstitutional under s. 12 of the Charter. The majority reasoned that such minimums could result in “grossly disproportionate” sentences in reasonably foreseeable scenarios, such as a teenager sharing a sext from a peer. The dissent, however, argued that the majority’s hypothetical was too remote from the facts and risked undermining society’s denunciation of sexual crimes against children.
Both cases illustrate the courts’ essential role in upholding constitutional rights and legal principles, even when doing so invites public outcry or political backlash. The rule of law requires judges to decide cases based on the law and the facts, rather than on popular sentiment or political expediency.
The rule of law under attack
Predictably, these decisions have become flashpoints for political intervention. In the wake of the Cowichan ruling, some have called for a halt to reconciliation efforts, warning that property rights are under siege. In Senneville, prominent politicians, including Ontario Premier Doug Ford and federal Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre, have urged the federal government to invoke the Constitution’s notwithstanding clause to override the Supreme Court’s decision. Justice Minister Sean Fraser, to his credit, has rejected this approach, emphasizing the need for policy solutions within the bounds of the Constitution.
Public trust in the justice system is fragile. A recent study commissioned by a coalition of Canadian law societies found that 68 percent of Canadians believe politics or ideologies could soon influence court judgments, and 91 percent are concerned about political intervention in judicial decisions. These numbers are alarming. When political leaders attack court rulings or threaten to override them, they risk eroding the very foundation of our democracy: the independence of the judiciary and the rule of law.
The legal profession’s duty
In moments like these, lawyers have a special responsibility. As the Indigenous Bar Association (IBA) noted in response to the Cowichan decision, “Fear-based narratives undermine public confidence in the rule of law and erode the hard-won progress of Indigenous peoples toward justice.” The IBA called for good-faith negotiations, respectful debate, and a renewed commitment to the constitutional framework of reconciliation under s. 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.
Lawyers must stand as guardians of the rule of law, defending the independence of the courts and educating the public about the importance of judicial decision-making – even when those decisions are controversial or unpopular. We must resist efforts to politicize the justice system and remind Canadians that the rule of law is “ours to protect.” As recent events show, the health of our democracy depends on it.
