Canada’s highest court has formally parted ways with the social media platform X, formerly Twitter, in a strategic move in its online messaging strategy. The Supreme Court bid farewell to its 45,000 followers in a last tweet on February 26, 2025, saying that while its X account will remain open, it will no longer be used.
Supreme Court Shifts Social Media Focus Away From X
Supreme Court spokesperson Stephanie Bachand explained how the court would shift its social media presence to sites deemed more appropriate for public engagement.
“The Supreme Court wishes to focus on platforms that are more useful to the public and provide suitable information about its operations,” Bachand stated, citing LinkedIn, Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube as the court’s future go-to sites.
The shift comes nearly a decade after life on the platform began. Since 2015, when the service was then known as Twitter, the Supreme Court has made use of the platform as part of Chief Justice Richard Wagner’s initiative to increase the level of transparency and public knowledge of the court’s affairs.
While the court statement did not provide reasons for the departure, the move aligns with mounting distrust on the part of government authorities about the safety and credibility of X under Elon Musk’s ownership.
The platform has faced additional scrutiny over content moderation guidelines, data privacy, and disinformation spread.
To these concerns, Canada’s privacy commissioner is currently investigating practices by X regarding the use of personal information to train AI platforms, which could be contributing to problems for public institutions that have a presence on the site.
Legal commentator Catherine McKenzie, a partner with Montreal’s IMK Law, views the court’s move as part of a continuing trend.
“We’re seeing more and more government agencies reconsidering their social media approach in response to changing platform dynamics and heightened concerns about privacy,” McKenzie said. “The Supreme Court’s move is a thoughtful consideration of where its audience can best and responsibly be reached.”
The change happens at a time when institutions in the public eye across the world are fighting to keep channels of communication open in a complex era of social media monitoring.
Supreme Court of Canada Shifts Digital Strategy, Signaling Platform Values
For Canada’s Supreme Court, which adjudicates cases of national importance and lays down precedents that guide Canadian law, upholding public confidence through the correct channels of communication remains of paramount importance.
Digital communications strategist Marcus Thompson further noted the court’s action is more than a platform preference. “When an institution as important as the Supreme Court changes in this type of way, it’s more than a reflection of a platform preference,” Thompson said. “It’s signaling about values and priorities.
They’re essentially communicating that there’s some baseline quality of platform stewardship and performance that must be achieved before they’ll participate.”
The court’s transition strategy seems well thought out, with cross-platform alerts pushing its followers to its other platforms. This is designed to cause little disruption to its public outreach activities while reaffirming the institution’s commitment to transparency.
For the Canadian public accustomed to hearing court news through X, the change means acclimating to other sources of information. But legal watchers remarked generally that the transition has been greeted largely as prudent management of the court’s web presence.
The Supreme Court move can have an influence on other Canadian judicial and government institutions seeking to make the same transition.
Federal ministries and provincial courts have been closely observing platform trends, and several have begun internal reviews of their social media policy.
Supreme Court’s Digital Tightrope: Accessibility vs. Accountability
As with ongoing developments in digital communication, the Supreme Court ruling is proof of the narrow line that must be walked by public institutions between accessibility and accountability in their digital life.
In favoring those platforms that are perceived to be more in harmony with its institutional values, Canada’s highest court tries to stay connected with the public while defending its communications integrity.
The court has encouraged Canadians to observe its work on its alternative social media platforms, clarifying that this change is not a decrease but a redistribution of its commitment to public interaction.
