A Commitment to Equal Justice
“One of the reasons I went to law school was the basic search for equal justice for all,” Justice Martin explains. She views this not as a personal philosophy but as the fundamental principles by which all Canadians should view their legal system. “They have to have public confidence in their legal system. They have to see themselves in their legal system. They have to see themselves fairly represented.”

Understanding Diversity on the Bench
Justice Martin emphasizes that judges must understand the context of Canadians’ lives: “If we can say anything about Canada, we’re bilingual, bi-juridical, we’re multicultural, we’re pluralistic, and a decision maker sitting in a court has to understand the diversity of the people that come before court to render proper justice.”

A Distinguished Career
Before joining the Supreme Court, Justice Martin was a law professor and Dean of the Faculty of Law at the University of Calgary. As a lawyer, she focused on criminal and constitutional cases, including work on the Indian Residential School Settlement Agreement and helping people who were wrongfully convicted. She is also known for her expertise in judicial ethics and her efforts to remove stereotypes in the justice system, especially concerning sexual assault.

The Charter’s Transformative Impact
Justice Martin traces how the Charter has transformed Canadian law since 1982: “We see an ever-widening lens of what’s relevant in law.” Canadian rights are distinctive — language rights, group-based rights, Indigenous rights, and a broadly stated commitment to equality: “Equality before and under the law, the equal benefit and the equal burden of law. This could not be stated in more generous terms.”

Equality Methodology Across All Areas of Law
The Charter’s approach to equality has been “pulled through into other areas of law” — evidence, procedure, spousal and child support, marital privilege, and self-defence. “The law of self-defence has changed not just because Parliament has said it’s changed, but because the courts have asked: what does it look like for a battered woman who’s been in a history of an abusive relationship when she needs to defend herself? Is that a different model than what we would see in a bar room fight?”

Judicial Education and Social Context
Justice Martin has worked on judicial education around social context issues: “Judges needed to understand that.” She gives a powerful example: “Certain people may look you in the eyes when they’re a witness and other people, that’s not their custom. If they look away, they’re not being evasive, they’re being respectful. So it’s to understand those kinds of very important things in courtrooms across the country.”

Mandatory Minimum Sentences and Section 12
Justice Martin explains the Charter’s protection against cruel and unusual punishment (Section 12): “It’s the outer limit in terms of what society will impose on people for transgressions.” Parliament can impose mandatory minimums, but “that minimum has to take into account the least morally blameworthy person because it applies to everyone.”

She illustrates with an example: “Nobody wants people to be using guns, but if a 13-year-old is using a BB gun, is that the same thing? And it is if you have a mandatory minimum.”

The Boudreault Case: Not Criminalizing Poverty
In R. v. Boudreault, the Court struck down a mandatory victim surcharge that forced the poorest offenders to keep returning to court. “In Canada, we don’t criminalize poverty and we don’t force people who have rehabilitated themselves, who have paid their debts to society, to keep on coming back to court and facing constant legal jeopardy.”

The Role of Dissenting Opinions
Justice Martin explains that “we work as a group, usually as nine.” Dissents are important — they can signal areas where the law may evolve in the future and ensure that alternative perspectives are recorded for posterity.

1982: The Most Profound Development
“The most profound development in all of law was in 1982 when we became a constitutional democracy, repatriated our Constitution and have a Charter of Rights.” The Court has consciously grappled with its new role, maintaining public confidence while addressing the important issues of our time.

The Quebec Secession Reference
Justice Martin highlights this “profound case” that examined “what a nation means and what happens when a province decides that they might like to leave the Federation.” The decision carefully articulated “what are the pillars of our democracy.”

Hate Speech and Multicultural Society
“In Canada, it’s still a crime to propagate hate against an identifiable group. Why? Because we have a multicultural society and you can’t undermine the freedoms and rights of minority groups by using hate speech against them.”

Plain Language Communication
The Court has made conscious efforts to communicate more clearly: “Most people in a family law matter are self-represented. If we’re making a decision on that, we need to explain it in plain English or French.”

The Future: Same Questions, Different Presentations
Looking ahead 150 years, Justice Martin reflects: “They’ll always be about how it is we choose to live with each other… What are the limits to how we will treat each other? What kind of society do we want?” Her hope: “That we really maintain that fabulous Canadian value of allowing a difference of opinion.”

Landmark Cases That Shaped Canada
Justice Martin identifies key decisions:

• Roncarelli v. Duplessis — “A rule of law case and a protection of minority case”
• Quebec Secession Reference — “Talks about who we are as a country”
• Vriend v. Alberta — Recognition that sexual orientation is a protected ground under Section 15, affirming that “people should be able to take all of themselves to work and live their lives with equal rights”