In their court battle over pay raises, judges and Ottawa disagree on nearly everything

Justice Minister and Attorney General of Canada Sean Fraser. Photo by HYUNGCHEOL PARK/Postmedia

Article content

OTTAWA — Not only do federally appointed judges and the Carney government disagree on whether judges should get a raise, they don’t even agree on who should hear the court challenge on the issue.

Article content

The various procedural disagreements in the first few months of the lawsuit between the association representing judges and the Liberal government who appoints and pays them show just how contentious the unprecedented case is.

Article content

Article content

Article content

At issue in the lawsuit: did the government properly justify its decision to outright reject an independent commission’s recommendation to give judges a $28,000 to $36,000 raise on top of their nearly $400,000 salary as of April 1, 2024?

Article content

Article content

Judges say no and are asking the court to send the government back to do its homework again. The government says it did its due diligence in explaining that it would be uncouth to offer such a raise at a time of economic uncertainty.

Article content

It’s the first time a group representing judges is taking the government to court over the compensation regime that was put in place in 1999.

Article content

Last year, the commission tasked with reviewing judicial compensation said that a salary of nearly $400,000 in 2024 was “inadequate” and didn’t make the job attractive to top applicants. It recommended the government increase judges’ salaries by $28,000 for most and $36,000 for the chief justice of the Supreme Court.

Article content

Just under 1,200 judges sitting at all levels of court across the country and on the Supreme Court of Canada would be in line for the raises.

Article content

The Canadian Superior Courts Judges Association (CSCJA) — which represents over 1,400 sitting and retired judges — sued when the government rejected the recommendation. In December the association asked Justice Minister Sean Fraser to immediately refer the case to the Supreme Court in order to shorten the process.

Article content

Article content

But in a statement to National Post, Fraser’s spokesperson, Jeremy Bellefeuille, confirmed that the minister was going to let the process play out at the trial court.

Article content

Article content

“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.

Article content

A spokesperson for the CSCJA said the association respects the minister’s decision. “We thought that such a reference may be less time consuming and less costly,” Stephanie Lockhart said in an email to National Post.

Article content

Then in March, the parties battled over who should even hear the Federal Court case.

Article content

In a March 24 letter to the court, Elizabeth Richards — the government’s chief general counsel — suggested the court appoint a deputy judge who had retired before the hotly debated raise would kick in (April 2024) so as to avoid any “public perception of bias.”

Article content

A deputy judge is a current or former justice from another court who is exceptionally appointed to hear a case at a different tribunal.

Article content

“To the extent possible, this will minimize the potential appearance of conflict or address any reasonable public perception of bias that would arise from a current judge of the Federal Court — who has a pecuniary interest in the review of the Government’s Response to the Judicial Compensation and Benefits Commission’s Report on judicial salaries — adjudicating this case,” Richards wrote to the court.