The poppy, a symbol of remembrance for those who sacrificed their lives for Canada, is facing bans in some courtrooms across the country. This has raised concerns about the politicization of a symbol meant to transcend political differences. Nova Scotia and Saskatchewan are at the forefront of this issue.

In Nova Scotia, a spokesperson stated that all judges and staff are expected to refrain from wearing any symbols of support in the courtroom to maintain neutrality. The poppy has been deemed a violation of this rule. Andrew Preeper, the spokesperson, noted that staff wishing to wear poppies must consult with the presiding judge, and discussions have occurred on this topic. Reports indicate that sheriffs have been instructed not to wear poppies, while clerks must seek permission. Preeper did not clarify whether the ban extends to lawyers, although members of the public are allowed to wear them. He referenced the Canadian Judicial Council’s ethics guidelines, which discourage visible symbols of support by judges, but these guidelines do not explicitly prohibit the poppy or apply to lawyers.

Saskatchewan is experiencing a similar situation. A Crown prosecutor was recently told not to wear a poppy in the Court of King’s Bench. She explained that the rationale was that allowing poppies could lead to other items being worn on gowns. Christeen Shire, a communications officer for Saskatchewan courts, did not confirm whether judges or lawyers are banned from wearing poppies. She mentioned gowning rules that restrict adornments in the two highest levels of court, while the provincial court has no such attire regulations.

At the Supreme Court of Canada, judges do not wear poppies for neutrality reasons, and lawyers must adhere to their law societies' rules regarding attire. A spokesperson from a British Columbia court also cited the judicial council’s neutrality guidelines, stating that there is no specific policy on wearing poppies in the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court.

In Ontario, the superior court did not provide a clear answer on the poppy's status, only emphasizing the need for judges to appear neutral. However, a spokesperson for Ontario's Attorney General Doug Downey affirmed that the poppy is a solemn symbol of remembrance and should be permitted in all settings, including courtrooms. Legislation passed in 2021 protects workers' rights to wear poppies.

While some courts have pointed to the judicial council’s guidelines to justify their bans, this interpretation is not consistent across the country. In Prince Edward Island, judges and lawyers have been wearing poppies this November without any provincial restrictions. The same applies to New Brunswick, Manitoba, Quebec’s provincial court, and Ontario’s Court of Appeal.

Alberta’s provincial court allows judges to wear poppies, and former Supreme Court Justice Russell Brown noted that most judges wore poppies on their gowns during his time on the Alberta courts. He expressed confusion over why any court would discourage this practice.

The situation has put some provincial leaders in a difficult position. In Saskatchewan, Premier Scott Moe enacted legislation to protect the right to wear poppies, but it appears to have had little effect. In Nova Scotia, Premier Tim Houston is contemplating similar legislation, though the extent of his push against the courts remains uncertain.

Interestingly, while courts are banning the poppy, they are open to other forms of political expression. For instance, Nova Scotia’s highest court encourages lawyers to introduce themselves with their pronouns, a practice also adopted by King’s Bench in Saskatchewan and courts in Ontario. British Columbia’s provincial court suggests that lawyers provide their pronouns before speaking, and the Federal Court has a land acknowledgment policy that allows parties to express their views on Canadian sovereignty.

This inconsistency raises questions about the role of courts as moral arbiters in society. If they struggle to navigate the symbolism of the poppy, it may lead to a decline in public trust regarding their judgments on more significant issues.