The Federal Court is set to become the final arbiter in a historic dispute over judicial pay, as Canada's federally appointed judges have launched an unprecedented lawsuit against the government. The legal action, filed on Wednesday, challenges Justice Minister Sean Fraser's decision to reject a recommended salary increase of $28,000 to $38,000.
An Unprecedented Legal Challenge
The Canadian Superior Courts Judges Association (CSCJA), representing approximately 1,400 sitting and retired judges, initiated the lawsuit. This marks the first time since the establishment of the quadrennial Judicial Compensation and Benefits Commission in 1999 that the judiciary has taken the government to court over pay.
The commission, created following a pivotal 1997 Supreme Court ruling, is an independent body that reviews judicial compensation. It hears from both the government and judges before issuing non-binding recommendations, to which the government must formally respond.
The Core of the Dispute
In July, the commission concluded that the current annual salary of $414,900 for most federally appointed judges was "inadequate" to attract "outstanding candidates" to the bench. It subsequently recommended raises ranging from $28,000 for most judges to $36,000 for the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
However, on the eve of the 2025 budget, Minister Fraser formally rejected this advice. The government's response, articulated by spokesperson Jeremy Bellefeuille, cited existing annual indexation and strong pensions as sufficient compensation. It also dismissed concerns about a shortage of top-tier candidates for judicial vacancies.
The government further argued that granting a significant raise to judges would be inappropriate while many Canadians face economic uncertainty and as Ottawa plans cuts to public sector spending and bureaucracy.
Judges Claim Government Reasons Lack Foundation
The CSCJA's lawsuit contends that the government's rejection fails on legal grounds. The court documents state bluntly: "None of the three reasons given by the Government are legitimate reasons based on a reasonable factual foundation."
The association argues that Minister Fraser did not properly justify why he disregarded the commission's expert recommendation. Instead of engaging with the substance of the report or new data presented on the growing salary gap between judges and senior lawyers, the lawsuit claims Fraser merely reiterated arguments that had already failed to convince the independent commission.
The judges assert that the government's response missed the point entirely, failing to address the core reasoning that led to the recommended increase aimed at preserving the quality and independence of the judiciary.
This legal confrontation now places the politically sensitive issue of judicial compensation squarely before the Federal Court. The outcome will set a significant precedent for how future governments must engage with the recommendations of the independent commission tasked with safeguarding judicial independence from political influence.
