Canadian Lawyer

OP I N ION of living indexation required by the Judges' Act, wage increases for judges during these years turned out to be somewhat higher than these limits. From 2006 to 2011, judges' salaries increased by 50-per-cent more than others paid from the public purse, a net increase of 14.5 per cent as compared to 9.6 per cent, but still modest by most standards. The chief justice's annual salary, as a result of these increases, is now $361,300. Puisne judges of the Supreme Court are paid $334,500. In its 2011 submission to the commission, a tough-minded commission, should be paid $370,300, and justices $342,800, very modest increases from the current levels. What will the government do? My bet is that, once again, it government proposed that salary increases for judges be capped at a maximum of 1.5 per cent annually for the quadren- nial period, including statutory indexation. Why? "The global economy has recently experienced the deepest and most syn- chronized recession since the Great Depression. That recession has had a seriously detrimental effect on Canada's finances." The proposed increase would reflect general constraints on public-sector spending. Judicial salaries, said the government, are already at a level that preserves the financial security (and therefore judicial independence) of judges, and their successful recruitment. By the way, I'm surprised that some of the government's will ignore the commission's recommendations, modest though they are, and stick with 1.5 per cent. I don't think the govern- ment gives a tinker's damn what quadrennial commissions say. The minister of Justice must "respond" to the report within six months of receiving it, although — the ultimate insult — he didn't bother to meet that deadline in 2008. Maybe Henry is right. If the government will do what it wants, ignoring recommendations from an independent body, then why have all the quadrennial fuss, bother, and expense in the first place? It's not as if we can say the judicial salaries really are fixed independently, which is supposed to be the whole point. Here's something that could replace the cumbersome and comments on recruitment didn't put the cat among the pigeons (maybe no one, except Henry, reads this stuff). Its submis- sion says, "While it may be appropriate in many industries to assume that the brightest, most capable individuals are also the most highly-paid, such an assumption does not hold true for the legal profession." That's because many of the best potential judges (says the government) work as academics or for govern- ment or in less remunerative fields such as criminal defence work or family law. The submission continues: "A highly-paid 'rainmaker' who develops a great deal of business for a national law firm, but no longer has a significant substantive legal prac- tice, may be poorly suited to the bench. . . ." Really? I know a lot of folks on Bay Street who would take exception to this analysis. Incidentally, for some lawyers, no longer having a "significant substantive legal practice" is a pretty good reason to seek a judicial appointment. The Canadian Superior Courts Judges Association, jointly with the Canadian Judicial Council, also made a submission to the commission (a mere 67 pages). It was critical of how governments had responded in the past to the quadrennial commissions (for the most part, just ignoring them). It urged that the government adopt prospectively the recommendations of the 2008 commission: phased salary increases of 4.9 per cent as of April 1, 2012, inclusive of statutory indexing, and two per cent as of each of April 1 in 2013, 2014, and 2015, exclusive of statutory indexing. The 2012 commission's response to all this is pretty con- pointless process we now have. Why don't we pay Supreme Court justices what they're worth? What they do is vital to the country's well being. In an age when Bay Street lawyers and investment bankers, whose only job is to make the rich richer, make millions, maybe we should simply double judges' salaries and leave it at that. Philip Slayton's latest book, Mighty Judgment: How the Supreme Court of Canada Runs Your Life, is now available in paperback. Follow him on Twitter @philipslayton. Daniel E. Pinnington Raymond G. Leclair Lawyers' Professional Indemnity Company LAWPRO President & CEO Kathleen Waters announces the appointment of Daniel E. Pinnington as Vice-President of LAWPRO's newly created Claims Prevention and Stakeholder Relations Department and Raymond G. Leclair as LAWPRO's Vice-President, Public Aff airs. As director of practicePRO for the past 11 years, Mr. Pinnington built LAWPRO's risk management program into one highly regarded within the legal community in Canada and the U.S.A. He has served in many roles at all levels of the Ontario, Canadian and American bar associations, and is a frequent speaker and writer on risk management, technology and law practice management issues. servative. Its report recommends that judges' salaries not be increased, provided statutory indexation is maintained. Indexation is likely to produce increases marginally greater than the 1.5-per-cent cap proposed by the government. The commission also recommends a three-per-cent differential for puisne judges of appellate courts and that salary differ- entials continue to be paid to the chief justice of Canada and the justices of the Supreme Court. The chief justice, says the Mr. Leclair joined LAWPRO in 2008 as Vice-President, TitlePLUS and in 2011 was appointed LAWPRO's Vice-President, Public Aff airs on an acting basis. He has served in senior capacities with the real property sections of the Ontario and Canadian bar associations, as well as representing the interests of the real estate bar on numerous task forces and working groups. programs to more than 23,500 Ontario lawyers, and title insurance in all Canadian jurisdictions. LAWPRO's TitlePLUS title insurance program is the only all-Canadian title insurance in the market today. LAWPRO provides malpractice insurance and risk and practice management www.CANADIAN Lawyermag.com JULY 2012 17 awPro-DanRay_CL_July_12.indd 1 12-06-08 9:33 AM

• Cover