Popping the Question: What the Questionnaire for Federal Judicial Appointments Reveals about the Pursuit of Justice, Diversity, and the Commitment to Transparency

Since 2017, the Canadian government has published excerpts from questionnaires that prospective judges completed as part of the judicial selection process, subjecting newly appointed superior and federal court judges to a degree of scrutiny that is unprecedented in Canadian history. Using this novel source material, this article explores what a sample of 16 judges’ questionnaires do and do not say about the individuals behind the robes. This review suggests that those appointed to the bench in 2017 generally demonstrate insight into the judicial role in Canada. However, some provide only superficial responses, others parrot back normative values that the government has already prescribed, and many offer substantially similar answers. This suggests, first, that not all successful applications or, for that matter, applicants are created equal and, second, that applicants use the questionnaire less as an opportunity to demonstrate free thought and more as a test to prove their fealty to dominant assumptions about the court’s role in society. The questionnaire therefore misses an opportunity to show that diversity on the bench is more than skin-deep. Meanwhile, recent trends show that the government has lagged behind on its commitment to make judges’ applications public. The article concludes that if the government is serious about introducing greater transparency and accountability to the judicial selection process, then it should revise the questionnaire to elicit more meaningful responses from applicants and table legislation to codify the government’s political promise to publish appointees’ views on the role of the judiciary in Canadian society. Depuis 2017, le gouvernement canadien publie des extraits des questionnaires remplis par les juges potentiels dans le cadre du processus de sélection judiciaire, soumettant ainsi les juges des cours supérieures et fédérales nouvellement nommés à un degré d’examen sans précédent dans l’histoire du Canada. En utilisant ce nouveau matériel de base, le présent article explore ce qu’un échantillon de 16 questionnaires de juges disent et ne disent pas à propos des individus portant la toge. Cet examen suggère que les personnes nommées à la magistrature en 2017 font généralement preuve d’une bonne connaissance du rôle judiciaire au Canada. Cependant, certains ne donnent que des réponses superficielles, d’autres reprennent les valeurs normatives que le gouvernement a déjà prescrites, et beaucoup offrent des réponses substantiellement similaires. Cela suggère, premièrement, que toutes les candidatures retenues ou, d’ailleurs, les candidats eux-mêmes ne sont pas créés égaux et, deuxièmement, que les candidats utilisent le questionnaire moins comme une occasion de démontrer leur libre pensée et plus comme un test pour prouver leur fidélité aux hypothèses dominantes sur le rôle de la cour dans la société. Le questionnaire manque donc une occasion de montrer que la diversité sur le banc est plus que superficielle. Entre-temps, les tendances récentes montrent que le gouvernement a pris du retard dans son engagement à rendre publiques les requêtes des juges. L’article conclut que si le gouvernement souhaite sérieusement introduire plus de transparence et de responsabilité dans le processus de sélection des juges, il devrait alors réviser le questionnaire pour obtenir des réponses plus significatives de la part des candidats et déposer un projet de loi pour codifier la promesse politique du gouvernement de publier les opinions des personnes nommées sur le rôle du pouvoir judiciaire dans la société canadienne

Popping the Question: What the Questionnaire for Federal Judicial Appointments Reveals about the Pursuit of Justice, Diversity, and the Commitment to Transparency

Since 2017, the Canadian government has published excerpts from questionnaires that prospective judges completed as part of the judicial selection process, subjecting newly appointed superior and federal court judges to a degree of scrutiny that is unprecedented in Canadian history. Using this novel source material, this article explores what a sample of 16 judges’ questionnaires do and do not say about the individuals behind the robes. This review suggests that those appointed to the bench in 2017 generally demonstrate insight into the judicial role in Canada. However, some provide only superficial responses, others parrot back normative values that the government has already prescribed, and many offer substantially similar answers. This suggests, first, that not all successful applications or, for that matter, applicants are created equal and, second, that applicants use the questionnaire less as an opportunity to demonstrate free thought and more as a test to prove their fealty to dominant assumptions about the court’s role in society. The questionnaire therefore misses an opportunity to show that diversity on the bench is more than skin-deep. Meanwhile, recent trends show that the government has lagged behind on its commitment to make judges’ applications public. The article concludes that if the government is serious about introducing greater transparency and accountability to the judicial selection process, then it should revise the questionnaire to elicit more meaningful responses from applicants and table legislation to codify the government’s political promise to publish appointees’ views on the role of the judiciary in Canadian society. Depuis 2017, le gouvernement canadien publie des extraits des questionnaires remplis par les juges potentiels dans le cadre du processus de sélection judiciaire, soumettant ainsi les juges des cours supérieures et fédérales nouvellement nommés à un degré d’examen sans précédent dans l’histoire du Canada. En utilisant ce nouveau matériel de base, le présent article explore ce qu’un échantillon de 16 questionnaires de juges disent et ne disent pas à propos des individus portant la toge. Cet examen suggère que les personnes nommées à la magistrature en 2017 font généralement preuve d’une bonne connaissance du rôle judiciaire au Canada. Cependant, certains ne donnent que des réponses superficielles, d’autres reprennent les valeurs normatives que le gouvernement a déjà prescrites, et beaucoup offrent des réponses substantiellement similaires. Cela suggère, premièrement, que toutes les candidatures retenues ou, d’ailleurs, les candidats eux-mêmes ne sont pas créés égaux et, deuxièmement, que les candidats utilisent le questionnaire moins comme une occasion de démontrer leur libre pensée et plus comme un test pour prouver leur fidélité aux hypothèses dominantes sur le rôle de la cour dans la société. Le questionnaire manque donc une occasion de montrer que la diversité sur le banc est plus que superficielle. Entre-temps, les tendances récentes montrent que le gouvernement a pris du retard dans son engagement à rendre publiques les requêtes des juges. L’article conclut que si le gouvernement souhaite sérieusement introduire plus de transparence et de responsabilité dans le processus de sélection des juges, il devrait alors réviser le questionnaire pour obtenir des réponses plus significatives de la part des candidats et déposer un projet de loi pour codifier la promesse politique du gouvernement de publier les opinions des personnes nommées sur le rôle du pouvoir judiciaire dans la société canadienne

Access of Evil? Legislating Online Youth Privacy in the Information Age

This article seeks to address what constitutes youth online privacy, how youth conceive of their privacy, whether their privacy needs protecting, and, if so, how youth privacy should be regulated online. First, the article begins by rooting the issue of online youth privacy in the current social, technological, economic, political, and legal context, drawing on social science research to demonstrate both the threats and opportunities created by technology for youth privacy. Second, the analysis focuses on the relative strengths and weaknesses of current federal legislation as the primary law governing the collection, use, and disclosure of youth’s personal information through their online activities, including their use of social networks and mobile applications or “apps.” Under the Constitution Act, 1867, privacy is not explicitly assigned to the provinces or the federal government. Depending on the context, privacy may affect provincial domain over property and civil rights, or the federal power over trade and commerce. However, aside from British Columbia, Alberta, and Quebec, which have passed “substantially similar” legislation to the federal government, the federal statute applies to all private organizations across the country that collect information in the course of a commercial activity, even if they only carry on business in a single province. Practically speaking, to the extent commercial websites collect young people’s information across interprovincial or international borders, they are going to be governed by the federal statute, in recognition of the federal government’s power to regulate interprovincial and international trade. It is worth noting that Canadian jurisprudence on youth privacy online is underdeveloped by virtue of the fact that the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada (OPC) generally diverts such grievances from the judicial system. Even then, the Privacy Commissioner has so far only conducted one investigation into a website that specifically targets youth. Accordingly, the Commissioner’s report into the complaint against Nexopia.com, a Canadian-made social network, figures prominently in this analysis. It serves as a case study of how federal privacy legislation is applied in practice, and an example by which the effectiveness of the existing regime may be evaluated. Third, after canvassing the shortcomings of the current legal regime, I consider proposals for reform and assess their merits. This analysis draws on the legislative experience of the United States, both as a possible model for reform and as a cautionary tale. Given that many of the world’s most popular websites among youth originate in the US, that country’s Congress has arguably had a greater influence on the information practices and privacy policies affecting Canadian youth than any other. Finally, I offer an alternative legal solution to give more meaningful expression to youth privacy rights, while avoiding the paradigmatic trap of most existing proposals

Access of Evil? Legislating Online Youth Privacy in the Information Age

This article seeks to address what constitutes youth online privacy, how youth conceive of their privacy, whether their privacy needs protecting, and, if so, how youth privacy should be regulated online. First, the article begins by rooting the issue of online youth privacy in the current social, technological, economic, political, and legal context, drawing on social science research to demonstrate both the threats and opportunities created by technology for youth privacy. Second, the analysis focuses on the relative strengths and weaknesses of current federal legislation as the primary law governing the collection, use, and disclosure of youth’s personal information through their online activities, including their use of social networks and mobile applications or “apps.” Under the Constitution Act, 1867, privacy is not explicitly assigned to the provinces or the federal government. Depending on the context, privacy may affect provincial domain over property and civil rights, or the federal power over trade and commerce. However, aside from British Columbia, Alberta, and Quebec, which have passed “substantially similar” legislation to the federal government, the federal statute applies to all private organizations across the country that collect information in the course of a commercial activity, even if they only carry on business in a single province. Practically speaking, to the extent commercial websites collect young people’s information across interprovincial or international borders, they are going to be governed by the federal statute, in recognition of the federal government’s power to regulate interprovincial and international trade. It is worth noting that Canadian jurisprudence on youth privacy online is underdeveloped by virtue of the fact that the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada (OPC) generally diverts such grievances from the judicial system. Even then, the Privacy Commissioner has so far only conducted one investigation into a website that specifically targets youth. Accordingly, the Commissioner’s report into the complaint against Nexopia.com, a Canadian-made social network, figures prominently in this analysis. It serves as a case study of how federal privacy legislation is applied in practice, and an example by which the effectiveness of the existing regime may be evaluated. Third, after canvassing the shortcomings of the current legal regime, I consider proposals for reform and assess their merits. This analysis draws on the legislative experience of the United States, both as a possible model for reform and as a cautionary tale. Given that many of the world’s most popular websites among youth originate in the US, that country’s Congress has arguably had a greater influence on the information practices and privacy policies affecting Canadian youth than any other. Finally, I offer an alternative legal solution to give more meaningful expression to youth privacy rights, while avoiding the paradigmatic trap of most existing proposals