Supreme Court won’t say who paid for bust of chief justice

Article content

OTTAWA – The Supreme Court of Canada won’t say which private interest paid for a lifelike bronze bust of Chief Justice Richard Wagner that sits prominently in the building’s Grand Entrance Hall, a lack of transparency that concerns legal and ethics specialists.

Visitors who enter the Supreme Court of Canada’s (SCC) Grand Entrance Hall in Ottawa will quickly notice a detailed bust of Wagner that sits adjacent to the central stairway leading to the main courtroom.

Article content

But what they won’t see on the bust, unlike on those of previous chief justices also on display, is any indication of who paid it. The sculptor said in an interview he usually charges $18,000 for a bust like Wagner’s.

For weeks, the National Post has repeatedly asked the SCC Executive Legal Officer Stéphanie Bachand information about who paid for the bust — since it’s neither the court nor the government — and if the donor has any business or interests with the court.

Bachand has repeatedly refused to answer detailed questions, insisting only that the donor wanted to remain anonymous.

“The Chief Justice’s bust was donated to the Court by a donor who specifically asked to remain anonymous. For this reason, the plaque bears no mention of the donor. We have no information on the cost of the bust,” Bachand said in an email.

“Neither the Chief Justice nor the court’s administration know about the donor’s identity,” she added.

The court refused to answer questions about who at the court knows the donor’s identity, if the donor is a current member of a Canadian Bar Association, has or has had business in front of the SCC, or works in any capacity as counsel or for a firm that provides legal services.

Article content

Article content

The court’s opacity surrounding who knows what about who paid for Wagner’s bust is surprising to a half-dozen experts and lawyers interviewed for this story, many of whom asked to remain anonymous because they either fear retribution or may have business in front of the SCC.

“It creates an appearance of conflict of interest, an appearance that is very problematic on an ethical level,” said Université de Laval professor Patrick Taillon. “The Court has a duty to be exemplary on ethical questions such as this.”

“We ask out elected officials to divulge nearly every last gift they receive, we submit them to rules,” he added. “The court should voluntarily adopt exemplary rules that are at least as transparent as those for the government, such as regarding gifts or sponsored travel.”

Wagner has repeatedly preached for more transparency in the judicial system. Since being promoted to chief justice in 2017, he’s put in place new practices such as an annual press conference and occasional court sittings outside of Ottawa with the aim of improving the public’s access to the SCC.

Article content

But many court watchers agree that there remains much work to be done, particularly when it comes countering opaqueness from the SCC itself. They point to the fact that the public learned of former SCC Justice Russell Brown quietly being placed on paid leave in Feb. 2023 via an asterisk in a ruling.

Dalhousie University professor Richard Devlin commented that in cases like Wagner’s bust, “sunlight is the best disinfectant.”

“While I do not think this is one of the more pressing ethical issues facing our judiciary, I think it is odd that the SCC cannot be more forthcoming about the protocols in place for dealing with these sorts of matters,” Devlin, a preeminent specialist in Canadian judicial ethics, said in an email.

One senior counsel, who was granted anonymity because they fear reprisal from the SCC, said it was “nonsense” that neither the chief justice nor anyone in the court administration claimed to know who had donated the bust.

“It seems almost bizarre to me, and quite concerning, that no one at the court, including the chief justice, claims to know who donated this. Shouldn’t they want to know that? Is it a litigant seeking to curry favour? Is it a corrupt litigant? Is it a foreign government?” he asked.

Article content

“Maybe not knowing the specific identity is one thing, but I think you want to understand the general nature of the source,” he added.

Yet, the SCC has apparently never had an issue with disclosing at least the nature of the donor of every preceding chief justice bust. For example, former chief justice Bora Laskin’s bust was “presented by the Canadian Bar Association and the Canadian Society for the Weizmann Institute of Science.“

The bust of Wagner’s predecessor, Beverley McLachlin, was “presented by members of the Bar.” The sculpture of Chief Justice John Robert Cartwright was “presented by his family.”

In an interview, sculptor Jean-Pierre Busque said he had no connection with the Supreme Court until he was put in contact with them through the foundry he works with back in 2019.

Busque said he made two busts. The first is the official bust that sits in the SCC’s Grand Entrance Hall, the second is a replica that was given to Quebec-based law firm Lavery, where Wagner practised for 24 years before being appointed to the Superior Court of Quebec in 2004.

Article content

The sculptor said he charges $18,000 for a sculpture like Wagner’s. He could not recall who had paid for the one destined to the SCC.

In an email, Lavery spokesperson Jean-François Lemieux confirmed that the firm paid for the replica of Wagner’s bust in its office, but that another “patron” paid for the original sculpture.

Many in the legal and judicial field also question why the chief justice should have a bust of themselves on display while sitting on the bench.

Bachand said there is no set tradition as to when a chief justice’s bust is put on display and that it was put on display when ready “at the artist’s request” and to allow a third party to display a replica.

But Busque said he did not know why the bust was displayed immediately, though he was happy to know the piece was public.

“I have no idea why the bust was put out immediately as opposed to after retirement. They asked me for a bust … I delivered the bust to Ottawa, and they installed it,” he said. “People who visit the court are curious to know who the chief justice is. So, I think it’s normal that it be displayed.”

The experts and lawyers who spoke to the National Post for this story said they believe this is the first time a bust has been displayed before a chief justice retires. Many said they did not like it.

Article content

“What would we say if Prime Ministers Stephen Harper … or Justin Trudeau displayed in the institutions they lead a bust of themselves while they governed? We’d probably think there was some megalomania or lack of judgment. That’s the issue here,” Taillon said.

“Why do we have to have a bust of a sitting judge in the Grand Hall where all can pay tribute?” the senior counsel asked ironically.

Busque said that once he was chosen as the sculptor of Wagner’s bust, he met with the chief justice in Ottawa and took pictures of him in 2019.

He said he then spent about 50 hours working on a clay model of Wagner’s likeness and, when the final product was approved, it was sent to the foundry to be cast during a complex three-month process.

National Post

cnardi@postmedia.com

Get more deep-dive National Post political coverage and analysis in your inbox with the Political Hack newsletter, where Ottawa bureau chief Stuart Thomson and political analyst Tasha Kheiriddin get at what’s really going on behind the scenes on Parliament Hill every Wednesday and Friday, exclusively for subscribers. Sign up here.

Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark nationalpost.com and sign up for our daily newsletter, Posted, here.

Article content