In their court battle over pay raises, federally appointed judges and the Carney government disagree on nearly every aspect, including which court should hear the challenge. The procedural disputes in the first months of the lawsuit highlight the contentious nature of the unprecedented case.
Background of the Dispute
The Canadian Superior Courts Judges Association (CSCJA), representing over 1,400 sitting and retired judges, sued the government after it rejected an independent commission's recommendation for a $28,000 to $36,000 raise on top of judges' nearly $400,000 salary as of April 1, 2024. The commission deemed the salary "inadequate" to attract top legal talent.
The government argues it properly justified its decision, citing economic uncertainty. The judges, however, claim the government failed to do its homework and are asking the court to order a reconsideration.
Procedural Battles
In December, the CSCJA asked Justice Minister Sean Fraser to refer the case directly to the Supreme Court of Canada to expedite the process. However, Fraser’s spokesperson, Jeremy Bellefeuille, confirmed the minister would let the case proceed through the Federal Court.
“We’re proceeding with the (judicial review) in Federal (Court), and there is no record of us asking the Supreme Court of Canada to hear the matter,” Bellefeuille said.
The CSCJA respected the decision, with spokesperson Stephanie Lockhart noting they thought a reference “may be less time consuming and less costly.”
Conflict of Interest Concerns
In March, the parties clashed over who should hear the Federal Court case. Government chief general counsel Elizabeth Richards suggested appointing a deputy judge who retired before April 2024 to avoid any “public perception of bias.” She argued that a current Federal Court judge might have a pecuniary interest in the outcome, as the raise would affect all federal judges.
A deputy judge is a current or former justice from another court exceptionally appointed to hear a case at a different tribunal.
“To the extent possible, this will minimize the potential appearance of conflict or address any reasonable public perception of bias,” Richards wrote.
The case is the first where a judges' group has sued the government over the compensation regime established in 1999. Nearly 1,200 judges across all court levels, including the Supreme Court, would benefit from the proposed raises.
