Far be it from me to disagree with Constance Backhouse but no, a judge ruling and then meeting with a party to a case to receive "a gesture of gratitude" is not okay. https://leaderpost.com/news/saskatchewan/judges-appearance-at-teepee-after-ruling-stirs-up-debate

Maybe Backhouse is right that our ethical understanding of judging has evolved such that judges need to "reach out" and make a "special effort to connect" but I think that prospect is troubling, and there are consequences that flow from that. 2/n

First, we must remember that impartiality has as much to do with perception as anything else. If judges are perceive a playing favourites within different segments of society, we weaken the sinews of faith in the justice system. 3/n

Second, and to this I don't think legal scholars/the legal community pay sufficient heed: judicial independence is a 2-way street. We say traditional notions of democratic accountability don't apply to judges precisely on the expectation that they remain above the political fray.

Similarly, we push back against certain forms of criticism/condemnation of individual judges in order to preserve a perceive impartiality and 'apolitical' nature of the court. 5/n

If we have decided judges may now enter symbolic politics then the balancing effect of that is that they be subject to greater behavioural scrutiny, skepticism, and indeed, accountability. I'm not sure the legal community is ready for that.

So to repeat: I think this particular judge made the correct decision in the case at hand. And was likely well-intentioned in meeting with the claimant later on. But it was indeed inappropriate. Reasonable people could see this and question the judge's impartiality. That's bad.