The most widely read magazine for Canadian lawyers
Issue link: https://digital.canadianlawyermag.com/i/50831
TO P CO U R T TAL E S BY PHILIP SLAYTON All I'm askin Is for a little respect . . . tion (unless, of course, you happen to be a Supreme Court justice), but lately judicial compensation has become a hot — okay, warm — issue. Every four years, the Judicial H Compensation and Benefits Commission, established in 1999 under the Judges Act, reviews and makes recommendations to the minister of Justice about the compensation and benefits of federally appointed judg- es. The commission process reflects a constitutional requirement that, to preserve the independence of the judiciary, judges' compensation must be determined indepen- dently of the executive and leg- islative branches. The Supreme Court itself laid down this rule in the 1997 case of Reference re Remuneration of Judges. The commission last reported on May 30, 2008. It agreed with a submission by the Canadian Bar Association that judges' salaries and ben- efits must "be commensurate with the position of a judge in our society and must reflect the respect with which our courts are to be regarded." The report took as its touchstone the mid-point of a senior federal deputy minister's salary, plus one half of his maximum performance pay. It recommended that the existing salary differentials between judges, chief justices, associate chief jus- tices, justices of the Supreme Court of 26 M AY 2009 www. C ANADIAN Law ye rmag.com ow much should a Supreme Court of Canada judge be paid? This may seem like a trivial ques- Canada, and the chief justice of Canada be maintained in the same proportion. For the Supreme Court of Canada, if the commission's recommendations were accepted, the chief justice's salary would be raised from $278,400 to $349,800, and that of the other top court justices from $257,800 to $323,800. The commission's report, almost 100 pages long and full of intricate argu- ment, was ignored for some months by the Harper government, despite a requirement in the Judges Act that there be an official response within six months. The CBA and others pontificated that apparent government indifference to the commission's recommendations threatened the independence of the judiciary, although they never really explained why this was the case. Then, in February, the government made clear that it would not raise judges' salaries as recommended. Why? It's the economy, stupid. A statement by Justice Minister Rob Nicholson said: "[D]uring this period of global economic uncer- tainty, it is vital