Provincial Court Judges' Assn. of New Brunswick v. New Brunswick (Minister of Justice)
Encyclopedia
Provincial Court Judges’ Assn. of New Brunswick v. New Brunswick (Minister of Justice); Ontario Judges’ Assn. v. Ontario (Management Board); Bodner v. Alberta; Conférence des juges du Québec v. Quebec (Attorney General); Minc v. Quebec (Attorney General) [2005] 2 S.C.R. 286 was a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada
in which the Court attempted to resolve questions about judicial independence
left over from the landmark Provincial Judges Reference
(1997). The Court found that government remuneration of provincial court judges that is lower than what an independent salary commission recommended can be justified. A broader perspective should be taken whether overall conditions of judicial independence have been met and some deference to the government is needed.
, Ontario Judges’ Assn. v. Ontario (Management Board) from Ontario
, Bodner v. Alberta from Alberta
, and Conférence des juges du Québec v. Quebec (Attorney General); Minc v. Quebec (Attorney General) from Quebec
. Each case involved interpretation of how to properly pay provincial court judges. The cases arose following the Provincial Judges Reference, which found that in order to ensure salaries are free of political manipulation, independent salary commissions should recommend salaries and governments could deviate from recommendations only for rational reasons. This finding was grounded in principles found in the preamble
to the Constitution Act, 1867
. As the Supreme Court admitted in its 2005 decision, in attempting to ease relations between courts and government, "The Reference has not provided the anticipated solution, and more is needed."
Specifically, in each of the four cases there were disputes as to what reasons for not following recommendations were rational. Since it was found commissions should have a "meaningful effect" on remuneration, some courts suggested that the recommendations must be followed. In Alberta, the courts won their case against the government before the Alberta Court of Appeal. The government of Alberta, in not accepting some of the recommendations, noted its economic responsibilities and that compared to other salaries, the recommended judicial salaries were very large. The Court of Appeal, conversely, thought that the requirement that government reasons be rational should be a very difficult test to pass and only "extraordinary circumstances" could justify not following recommendations. This was based on the fact that the 1997 Reference had mentioned the Anti-Inflation Reference of 1976, which dealt with the definition of economic emergencies.
and its decisions must be constitutional. An irrational rejection would be "Bald expressions of rejection or disapproval." The Court added that salaries of judges could be compared with salaries of other government workers as long as the governments explains how they selected whom is compared to whom. New evidence can also be cited for not following recommendations, including discoveries that a recommendations' evidence is inaccurate.
When government reasons are legally challenged, the Supreme Court instructs reviewing courts to exercise deference
to the government. Following the 1997 Reference, the Supreme Court found reviewing courts should ask two questions, namely whether reasons are given by the government and whether they are reasonable. In 2005, the Court announced that "We are now adding a third stage which requires the reviewing judge to view the matter globally and consider whether the overall purpose of the commission process has been met." This "global perspective" requires a general evaluation of the situation, questions whether the government has acted rationally despite some small flaws in the government's reasons, and some deference to the government.
As for the Anti-Inflation Reference, the Court in 2005 noted that mention of it in the 1997 Reference was merely to demonstrate what constitutes a reviewing method. It was not to say that reasons for not following recommendations should be made only in light of economic emergencies.
Applying these new standards to the four cases, the Supreme Court found only the Quebec government's reasons were irrational. The Supreme Court faulted the Quebec government for not addressing the main recommendations.
Supreme Court of Canada
The Supreme Court of Canada is the highest court of Canada and is the final court of appeals in the Canadian justice system. The court grants permission to between 40 and 75 litigants each year to appeal decisions rendered by provincial, territorial and federal appellate courts, and its decisions...
in which the Court attempted to resolve questions about judicial independence
Judicial independence
Judicial Independence is the idea that the judiciary needs to be kept away from the other branches of government...
left over from the landmark Provincial Judges Reference
Provincial Judges Reference
The Provincial Judges Reference [1997] 3 S.C.R. 3 is a leading opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada in response to a reference question regarding remuneration and the independence and impartiality of provincial court judges...
(1997). The Court found that government remuneration of provincial court judges that is lower than what an independent salary commission recommended can be justified. A broader perspective should be taken whether overall conditions of judicial independence have been met and some deference to the government is needed.
Background
The decision arose from cases from four different provinces, namely Provincial Court Judges’ Assn. of New Brunswick v. New Brunswick (Minister of Justice) from New BrunswickNew Brunswick
New Brunswick is one of Canada's three Maritime provinces and is the only province in the federation that is constitutionally bilingual . The provincial capital is Fredericton and Saint John is the most populous city. Greater Moncton is the largest Census Metropolitan Area...
, Ontario Judges’ Assn. v. Ontario (Management Board) from Ontario
Ontario
Ontario is a province of Canada, located in east-central Canada. It is Canada's most populous province and second largest in total area. It is home to the nation's most populous city, Toronto, and the nation's capital, Ottawa....
, Bodner v. Alberta from Alberta
Alberta
Alberta is a province of Canada. It had an estimated population of 3.7 million in 2010 making it the most populous of Canada's three prairie provinces...
, and Conférence des juges du Québec v. Quebec (Attorney General); Minc v. Quebec (Attorney General) from Quebec
Quebec
Quebec or is a province in east-central Canada. It is the only Canadian province with a predominantly French-speaking population and the only one whose sole official language is French at the provincial level....
. Each case involved interpretation of how to properly pay provincial court judges. The cases arose following the Provincial Judges Reference, which found that in order to ensure salaries are free of political manipulation, independent salary commissions should recommend salaries and governments could deviate from recommendations only for rational reasons. This finding was grounded in principles found in the preamble
Preamble
A preamble is an introductory and expressionary statement in a document that explains the document's purpose and underlying philosophy. When applied to the opening paragraphs of a statute, it may recite historical facts pertinent to the subject of the statute...
to the Constitution Act, 1867
Constitution Act, 1867
The Constitution Act, 1867 , is a major part of Canada's Constitution. The Act created a federal dominion and defines much of the operation of the Government of Canada, including its federal structure, the House of Commons, the Senate, the justice system, and the taxation system...
. As the Supreme Court admitted in its 2005 decision, in attempting to ease relations between courts and government, "The Reference has not provided the anticipated solution, and more is needed."
Specifically, in each of the four cases there were disputes as to what reasons for not following recommendations were rational. Since it was found commissions should have a "meaningful effect" on remuneration, some courts suggested that the recommendations must be followed. In Alberta, the courts won their case against the government before the Alberta Court of Appeal. The government of Alberta, in not accepting some of the recommendations, noted its economic responsibilities and that compared to other salaries, the recommended judicial salaries were very large. The Court of Appeal, conversely, thought that the requirement that government reasons be rational should be a very difficult test to pass and only "extraordinary circumstances" could justify not following recommendations. This was based on the fact that the 1997 Reference had mentioned the Anti-Inflation Reference of 1976, which dealt with the definition of economic emergencies.
Decision
The decision of the Supreme Court was unanimous and written by "The Court" (i.e., not attributed to a particular judge). In it, the Court quickly dismissed the notion that commission recommendations are mandatory on the grounds that this contradicted the 1997 Reference. The Supreme Court also found that rational justification for not following recommendations could be defined as the government giving full reasons that address the Commissions' points. The government must operate in good faithGood faith
In philosophy, the concept of Good faith—Latin bona fides “good faith”, bona fide “in good faith”—denotes sincere, honest intention or belief, regardless of the outcome of an action; the opposed concepts are bad faith, mala fides and perfidy...
and its decisions must be constitutional. An irrational rejection would be "Bald expressions of rejection or disapproval." The Court added that salaries of judges could be compared with salaries of other government workers as long as the governments explains how they selected whom is compared to whom. New evidence can also be cited for not following recommendations, including discoveries that a recommendations' evidence is inaccurate.
When government reasons are legally challenged, the Supreme Court instructs reviewing courts to exercise deference
Deference
Deference is the condition of submitting to the espoused, legitimate influence of one's superior or superiors. Deference implies a yielding or submitting to the judgment of a recognized superior out of respect or reverence...
to the government. Following the 1997 Reference, the Supreme Court found reviewing courts should ask two questions, namely whether reasons are given by the government and whether they are reasonable. In 2005, the Court announced that "We are now adding a third stage which requires the reviewing judge to view the matter globally and consider whether the overall purpose of the commission process has been met." This "global perspective" requires a general evaluation of the situation, questions whether the government has acted rationally despite some small flaws in the government's reasons, and some deference to the government.
As for the Anti-Inflation Reference, the Court in 2005 noted that mention of it in the 1997 Reference was merely to demonstrate what constitutes a reviewing method. It was not to say that reasons for not following recommendations should be made only in light of economic emergencies.
Applying these new standards to the four cases, the Supreme Court found only the Quebec government's reasons were irrational. The Supreme Court faulted the Quebec government for not addressing the main recommendations.
See also
- List of Supreme Court of Canada cases (McLachlin Court)
- Judicial Compensation and Benefits CommissionJudicial Compensation and Benefits CommissionThe Judicial Compensation and Benefits Commission is a Canadian commission that recommends judicial salaries for federally appointed judges.The commission was created in 1999 by the government of Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, under the Judges Act...
- Valente v. The QueenValente v. The QueenValente v. The Queen, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 673 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on protection of judicial independence under section 11 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.-Background:...
- Beauregard v. CanadaBeauregard v. CanadaBeauregard v. Canada [1986] 2 S.C.R. 56 was a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada on judicial independence. Notably, the Court found that judicial independence is based partly in an unwritten constitution, and that some institutional independence is needed so that judges can guard the...
- Mackeigan v. HickmanMackeigan v. HickmanMackeigan v. Hickman, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 796 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on judicial independence. The Court unanimously held that to require a federal judge to explain his or her decisions would violate the principle of judicial independence....
- R. v. GénéreuxR. v. GénéreuxR. v. Genereux, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 259 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision where the Court held that the government had the constitutional right to create a military justice system that existed in parallel to the regular court system...
- Therrien (Re)Therrien (Re)Therrien , [2001] 2 S.C.R. 3, 2001 SCC 35, is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on judicial independence.-Background:In the 1970s Richard Therrien was convicted of assisting four members of the Front de libération du Québec during the October Crisis. Once he was released he studied...