The Justice Inherent in Public Office Greed

"No explanation is provided beyond the Government's bald statement that judicial salaries are 'adequate', reflecting the Government's unabashed and improper substitution of its own view for that of the independent commission."

"It was at the very least incumbent on the Government to explain its differential treatment of the judiciary, who are not a class of civil servant."

"None of the three reasons given by the Government are legitimate reasons based on a reasonable factual foundation." 

Canadian Superior Courts Judges Association (CSCJA) lawsuit 

The federal government has rejected recommendations from the Judicial Compensation and Benefits Commission to boost judicial salaries. (Adrian Wyld/The Canadian Press)

 

"[Government: We disagree with the Judicial Compensation and Benefits Commission’s findings, and cannot justify the raises at this time]."

"This disagreement is not intended as criticism of the commissioners and their process."

"Rather, it reflects a significant deterioration in the Canadian financial outlook, and a carefully considered difference of perspective on the evidence presented to the commission and how it should be weighed."

"Judicial salaries are adequate and, in any event, cannot be the source of new fiscal expenditure at a time of comprehensive expenditure review, including possible public sector job losses." 

"Annual statutory indexing using IAI [Industrial Aggregate Index] provides for increases to judicial salaries that in most years exceed increases to the cost of living. In other words, in most years, IAI indexing provides for what can fairly be characterized as a raise."

Federal government response 

So there it is, Canada's judges are taking the federal government to court, suing the government over its  refusal to further fund salaries that are already creeping into the half-million annual compensation for many judges. The Canadian Superior Courts Judges Association representing the interests of 1,400 sitting and retired judges in Canada has taken umbrage over the government's decision not to oblige judges with a $28,000 raise in salary.

 

The Federal Court is to address the situation, and as far as the CSCJA is concerned, should respond to this unjust ruling by the government by ordering Justice Minister Sean Fraser to reverse the decision to deny a raise to judges whose salaries will remain a paltry $414,900 if government has its way. The Commission in question was established in 1999 and is an independent panel which every four years hears arguments from government and judges then issues non-binding recommendations the government must respond to.

 

The Supreme Court of Canada is pictured in October. The government rejected a recommendation that federal judges get a raise of at least $28,000, citing 'a significant deterioration in the Canadian financial outlook.' (Sean Kilpatrick/The Canadian Press)

 

The Commission recommended in July that the government increase "inadequate" salaries for judges by $28,000 for most federally appointed judges and for the chief justices of the Supreme Court, $36,000 would do, arguing that to ensure the bench remained attractive to "outstanding candidates", such a  raise is necessary. "Current compensation for judges already includes annual indexation and strong pensions", responded the minister's spokesperson while downplaying the notion that judicial vacancies suffer from a lack of top candidates.

 

On behalf of the compensation-aggrieved judges, the Association charged that the Justice Minister, having failed to impress the commission with its argument prior to the conclusion recommending an increase, simply repeated the same purported reasons, an argument that failed to make its point first time around and failed again on its reiteration. "Current compensation for judges' salary and benefits already includes annual indexation and pensions" repeated another Ministry spokesperson.

 

Magistrates, argued the judges' association require a $60,000 raise retroactive to April 2024 to ensure the appeal of a position increasingly struggling to attract "outstanding candidates". Without that monetary inducement, the risk is that there will result a vacancy crisis since the position would be viewed as unappealing to private sector lawyers. The government response was that judges' salary and benefits, inclusive of "one of the best retirement plans in Canada, along with generous indexing needed no $60,000 "bonus" for the job to be attractive".

 

Furthermore, it added, with government plans to cut the public service by 40,000 employees as a cost-saving measure, there was no justification in supporting a raise of such dimensions. Canadian police associations, victims of crime, taxpayers and members of the Parliamentary opposition all decry the current justice system in Canada, where decisions are increasingly made in favour of malefactors and victims given short shrift. It is the disaffected public facing steep increases in crime with criminals given bail and then repeating their offences, that ultimately fund justices' salaries.

 

The commission suggested the salary for the chief justice of the Supreme Court of Canada increase from $510,000 to $546,000, while the eight other justices would get a $33,000 raise. (Sean Kilpatrick/The Canadian Press)

"Allowing such a response to stand would render the commission process meaningless and erode public confidence in the independence of Canada's courts. A strong, expert, and independent judiciary is essential to the fair and timely delivery of justice."

"The Supreme Court of Canada made clear that while the Government is not required to accept Commission recommendations, if it chooses to depart from them, it has a duty to provide legitimate reasons."

Meaningful engagement with the Commission's work is not optional, it is a constitutional obligation." 

CSCJA lawyer Jean-Michel Boudreau

 DONE. Flogging a dead horse.