Canadian Lawyer

16 A U G U S T 2 0 1 7 w w w . C A N A D I A N L a w y e r m a g . c o m If there's one thing I've learned, it's that you have to know when to quit. That's true whether you're the chief justice of Canada or a simple, ink-stained wretch. By now, I've said pretty much everything I have to say about the Supreme Court of Canada. Sometimes, more than once . . . Let me leave you with a couple of general reflections. First, an obvious point but one worth making nonetheless: Canada has been, and is, well served by the Supreme Court, which is an essential institution of our democracy. As long as I've been a court watcher — almost half a century now, beginning in 1969 when I was Justice Wilfred Judson's law clerk — I've seen nine smart people work- ing away to resolve difficult legal issues on behalf of the country and presenting reasoned accounts of the decisions they make. Mostly, they've got it right. Thank you, Supreme Court! I mean it. It's hard and lonely work being a Supreme Court of Canada judge. You have to be careful what you do and say. You may be subject to wrong-headed criti- cism, but you can't hit back. You get paid well, but most judges could make a good deal more money in private practice. You have considerable professional and social status and get shown great deference, but status and deference, although nice, are not bankable. Sometimes, relationships with colleagues are not as good as every- one pretends. And, oh yes, you have to live in Ottawa. No wonder that many judges do not wait around until the mandatory retire- ment age of 75 to leave (Chief Justice McLachlin will be just a few months shy of 75 when she goes). Justice Tom Crom- well was only 64 when he retired in 2016. Michel Bastarache was 61 when he went in 2008. Louise Charron was 60 when she retired in August 2011. Marie Deschamps resigned in 2012 at 59. I commented in a 2012 column: "Being a Supreme Court judge is the job every Canadian lawyer wants — until, apparently, she gets it." It's a tough line of work. Not everyone sticks it out the way the chief has done. One of my main criticisms of the Supreme Court has been the way the judges are appointed. (This, of course, is really a criticism of the Constitution rather than the court itself). I've argued that a seat on the highest court should not be the gift of the prime minister act- ing alone (which it is, despite some fancy oodbye. Goodbye to Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, who this June announced she would retire at the end of the year (more about that later). Also, dear reader, goodbye to me, at least when it comes to Top Court Tales. This is my last column about the Supreme Court of Canada. I've written more than 50 of them. I've praised the court. I've criticized the court. I've made fun of the court. The time has come to give it a rest. The editor of this magazine agrees. It's the end of an era, he said. (I think he was referring to the chief justice's retirement.) T O P C O U RT TA L E S O P I N I O N @philipslayton SCOTT PAGE Farewell, top court Top Court Tales is retiring along with the chief justice, so a reflection is in order By Philip Slayton G IT'S HARD AND LONELY WORK BEING A SUPREME COURT OF CANADA JUDGE. YOU HAVE TO BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU DO AND SAY. YOU MAY BE SUBJECT TO WRONG-HEADED CRITICISM, BUT YOU CAN'T HIT BACK.

• Cover