Toronto boutique firm Lenczner Slaght is putting its litigation heft behind refugees at risk of immediate deportation working with Legal Aid Ontario’s Refugee Law Office. This after an announcement by legal aid earlier this month that it would cut refugee and immigration certificate spending by $1 million this fall.

Yesterday, LAO confirmed Lenczner Slaght had approached it earlier this year with an offer to advocate for the RLO’s clients on a pro bono basis.

Carole Simone Dahan, director of the Refugee Law Office, said because immediate deportation cases often have short timelines, the RLO couldn’t always step in. That made the offer particularly attractive in light of recent certificate spending cuts.

“Most recently, a woman detained at the immigration holding centre was given notice on a Monday that her removal was scheduled for that Thursday morning,” said Dahan. “Thanks to the work of Lenczner Slaght staff, we were able to file an emergency motion to the Federal Court, and successfully obtained a stay of the woman’s deportation.”

According to legal aid, the RLO began by training an associate at Lenczner Slaght in refugee law for six weeks. The associate then trained eight colleagues at the firm.

Since March, Lenczner lawyers have argued on behalf of four refugees who faced deportation within 24 to 72 hours, and remain on call to argue for an injunction that will stop their deportation through an emergency stay motion before the Federal Court, according to LAO.

Peter Griffin, Lenczner Slaght’s managing partner, said the firm is “pleased” that its lawyers have taken on the issue.

“We are pleased that our lawyers have demonstrated real interest in expanding the availability of legal services for refugees and others facing imminent deportation by supporting LAO’s RLO,” said Griffin.

The partnership comes in light of an Aug. 3 announcement by LAO that lawyers will receive a certificate for a maximum of eight hours for an expedited refugee case, while taking a closer look at refugee claimants hoping to qualify for legal aid. The changes will start Sept. 6, and are designed to tackle legal aid’s deficit.

According to LAO statistics, between 2009 and 2012, legal aid spending on immigration and refugee legal services increased by 24 per cent. In 2010-11, it spent $21 million for refugee and immigration services, but received roughly $7 million in federal funding for those services.

Tariffs and discretion requests have been a source of contention among refugee, family, and criminal lawyers, who say they should be paid more than the current rates. They have also pointed out that the amount of work required to complete matters often exceeds legal aid’s maximum hours significantly, and feel they may ultimately have to opt out of providing legal aid work because the margins are too slim.

LAO addressed some of those issues by changing its final discretion guidelines to consider a larger number of factors, like disclosure, in the discretion request process for complex criminal and family cases earlier this month. For refugee cases, it is now considering exclusion and multiple countries of citizenship.

But many lawyers have remained skeptical, saying they will have to wait to see how the changes ultimately play out.

A group of federal skilled workers fighting to keep their applications intact have learned some them may see their cases being resolved this week despite sweeping changes to Canada’s immigration system that have been looming since June.

The group are part of a legal proceeding filed in the Federal Court of Canada by Toronto’s Bellissimo Law Group, Quebec law firm Campbell Cohen, and other Canadian immigration lawyers, including Toronto lawyer Lorne Waldman.

Legal Feeds reported in July that an agreement had been reached between the group and the Department of Justice that Citizenship and Immigration Canada would not return processing fees or federal skilled worker applications for 90 days, starting from June 29, 2012. Now the group’s lawyers are expected to ask the Federal Court for certification as a class proceeding lawsuit, following a move toward the successful resolution of a handful of the group’s cases this month.

“As a result of litigation, some applicants have already been advised that their application will not be terminated. This would likely not have been possible at this time had these individuals not joined the proceedings,” said Bellissimo Law Group in a statement. “Again, this proceeding is a unique event in the history of Canadian immigration. As such, there is no precedent to judge the potential success of our actions. The ultimate decision is up to the courts. That being said, we have already secured a 90-day stay on the return of applications and government processing fees, which is a good initial sign. A better picture of our chances for success will come about as we progress further in the litigation process.”

The federal government made the most significant changes to the federal skilled worker category under Bill C-38 in June. In that category, nearly 280,000 people who applied before Feb. 27, 2008 will have their federal skilled worker applications removed from the current applicant pool and will receive a refund of their fees. They have also been told to reapply under several new guidelines.

Those guidelines include having experience in one of 29 occupations listed by the federal government as being in high demand, or having a job offer in Canada.

According to Immigration Minister Jason Kenney, the new system aims to speed up the application process for applicants who are young, highly skilled, and have the ability to speak English or French. It also develops a separate category for in-demand tradespeople and business investors.

For those who don’t meet the new guidelines, a pilot program will enable provinces and territories to accept an additional 1,500 people a year from the current backlog of applicants.

“Additional numbers of applicants directly challenging the law lets the Canadian government know that there are many affected persons who feel the law is unfair,” said Bellissimo Law Group. “The more applicants who are willing to take a stand against what they feel is legally wrong sends a stronger message to the Canadian government.”

LawPRO's Dan Pinnington says this recent bad cheque scam is one of many that have targeted lawyers over the last several years.

A commercial debt litigation scam originating from an alleged Malaysian company has targeted several Ontario lawyers this month, PracticePRO warns.

The alleged company, Yuraki Yamanaka of Chan Industries Pte Ltd., is said to have sent e-mails to lawyers asking whether or not they are in a conflict that will prevent them from representing the company’s alleged client, Renesas Electronics Corp., against “an entity” that Yamanaka claims is in the lawyer’s jurisdiction.

According to PracticePRO’s warning, the e-mails end by asking the lawyer to respond and say “we are ready to pass your retainer fee immediately.”

When lawyers replied, they got an e-mail back detailing more information about Yamanaka’s alleged case involving unpaid machinery equipment. Yamanaka also asks the lawyers to send a retainer agreement, PracticePRO warns.

Dan Pinnington, vice president of claims prevention and stakeholder relations at LawPRO, says the scam is one of many bad cheque scams that have targeted lawyers over the last several years.

“The main type of scam we’ve been seeing lately are bad cheque scams. These are scams that otherwise present themselves as legitimate legal matters, but ultimately turn out to be a scam. For example, bad debt collections fall under that category,” says Pinnington. “I think we’ve been seeing more of them compared to what we used to see in the past.”

In the last year and a half, Pinnington says LawPRO has uncovered more than 3,000 bad cheque scams nationally and abroad.
 
“Those are just the tip of the iceberg,” says Pinnington. “We are also getting reports that more of them are surfacing in other provinces and territories too.”

In August, PracticePRO issued alerts on at least five similar scams. Each appear to follow the same pattern of e-mailing lawyers, asking for their help in a legal matter, and inquiring if there are any conflicts.
 
Pinnington says the spike may be due to the increasing accessibility of technology and lawyers being able to access large amounts of money.
 
“It may be facilitated in part by technology,” says Pinnington. “We are used to dealing with people from all parts of the world now, even when we’ve never met them in person. Some of the scams are also clearly part of organized crime and lawyers are likely being targeted because they hold large amounts of money in trust and are able to access that money fairly easily.”

Pinnington says there are several red flags lawyers should look out for to avoid the scams.
 
“Be aware of matters that look too easy, messages that are inconsistent, and anyone that is willing to pay higher than normal fees,” says Pinnington.
 
To report fraud, visit lawpro.ca.

The federal Safe Streets and Communities Act could lead to a rise in the number of repeat offenders if more resources aren’t devoted to rehabilitating people who commit sexual offences against children, says one criminal lawyer.

Steven Tress says rehabilitation programs, not more jail time, will mean safer streets.

Steven Tress, a criminal and immigration lawyer in Toronto, says while portions of the act do aim to increase funding for rehabilitation services in Canadian jails, most community programs that work to stop people from reoffending will not be available in jail. He says that may increase the likelihood of reoffending once offenders complete their mandatory minimum sentences.

“While some rehabilitation programs are available in jail, space will be limited and funding will need to be increased to support them. So far, the federal government hasn’t done that,” says Tress.

“Mandatory minimums are like cutting off the hand of someone who steals. It may deter them in the short term, but if you haven’t addressed the root of why they are stealing in the first place, your streets will not be any safer, which is ironic given the name of the act.”

Mandatory minimums for offenders who commit sexual crimes against children under Bill C-10, the Safe Streets and Community Act (often called the omnibus crime bill) came into effect on Aug. 9.

The act establishes mandatory prison sentences for seven existing Criminal Code offences, such as luring a child, and eliminates conditional sentences like house arrest. The maximum penalty for indictable offences involving a parent or guardian procuring their child for illegal sexual activity while they are under the age of 16 will also be increased to 10 from five years.

Additionally, the act will create two new offences with mandatory prison sentences. The offences will make it illegal for anyone to provide sexually explicit material to a child for the purpose of facilitating the commission of a sexual offence against a child, and using telecommunications, including the Internet, to communicate with another person to commit a sexual offence against a child.

“The sexual exploitation of children is a heinous crime that causes irreparable harm to the youngest and the most vulnerable members of our society,” said Federal Justice Minister Rob Nicholson in a statement. “Our government is sending a clear message to dangerous pedophiles who prey on our children: from now on, you will serve jail time.”

But Tress says while sexual offences against children are a serious crime, he feels the federal government didn’t have enough evidence to suggest judges weren’t taking crimes against children seriously enough.

“In my experience, judges take it very seriously,” says Tress. “In my opinion, there wasn’t any evidence to suggest to the federal government that judges were not doing that before the act was pushed forward.”

In fact, Tress says he is aware of two cases where judges have chosen not to apply mandatory minimums to some offenders under the act.

“As criminal lawyers, we aren’t sure how judges are going to react to this,” he says. “Conditional sentences are an important tool available to judges and it looks as though they are still favoured in some circumstances.”

In the meantime, Tress says he expects a spike in Charter applications on a case-by-case basis.

“If there aren’t enough beds or space in the jail for an influx of offenders, they might have a case where there are intolerable conditions,” says Tress. “No matter what law is passed, as Canadians, we do have Charter protections. You can’t just say, OK, you’ve done this act, and regardless of the details or circumstances, you will be sent to jail.”

The federal government introduced the Bill C-10 in September 2011 and it got Royal assent on March 2012. It combines amendments from nine separate bills that will make fundamental changes to almost every component of Canada’s criminal justice system.

Many criminal lawyers have strongly criticized the bill, saying it will hinder a system already plagued by overcrowded jails and little funding.

A British Columbia first nation announced Wednesday that it will launch a class-action lawsuit against the B.C. and federal government for a second time to end commercial open net-pen salmon farming in the Broughton Archipelago.

B.C. Salmon farm locations (Source: Broughton Archipelago Monitoring Plan)

The Kwicksutaineuk/Ah-Kwa-Mish First Nation (KAFN) said it will renew its legal action to protect wild salmon in its territory from diseases allegedly spread by nearby salmon farms after the B.C. Court of Appeal ruled aboriginal collectives should not be allowed to join together in a class action in May.

Bob Chamberlin, KAFN chief and representative plaintiff in the action, chided both the Canadian and B.C. governments Aug. 8, saying their continued support of the aquaculture industry ignores its environmental impact on wild salmon populations and has forced the First Nation to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

“The appeal of our certification win by both the Canadian and B.C. governments, and supported by the aquaculture industry, hinged on technicalities and missed the importance of government’s obligation to regulate the open net salmon farming industry in a way that protects wild salmon,” said Chief Chamberlin. “This decision cannot remain unchallenged.”

KAFN first sought certification as a class against the B.C. government in February 2009. In KAFN’s statement of claim filed in the B.C. Supreme Court, it argued the B.C. government should be required to address the decline in wild salmon in the First Nation’s traditional territory, sought damages, and sought a declaration that the first nation has fishing rights in the Broughton Archipelago, among other remedies.

B.C. Supreme Court Justice Harry Slade certified the class action in December 2010. The certification marked the first class-action lawsuit advanced by a First Nation in Canada to protect aboriginal fishing rights.

Slade ruled that First Nations could be classified as a band and therefore could meet the test for class certification under the Indian Act as members of a shared culture with similar interests.

But the B.C. and Canadian governments later appealed the decision, with Justice Nicole Garson overturning Slade’s ruling in May 2012. Garson determined the First Nation could not clearly identify its class members, and therefore could not win certification as a class due to a lack of legal capacity and known objective criteria.

“Because class proceeding legislation is procedural, and does not create substantive rights, a proposed class action must identify class members who individually have legal capacity to sue and assert a cause of action,” Garson wrote in her May 3 decision Kwicksutaineuk/Ah-Kwa-Mish First Nation v. Canada (Attorney General).

Garson continued: “Before certification, that action was a representative action brought by a person who does have legal capacity. However, the certification of Chief Chamberlin’s representative action on behalf of ‘Aboriginal collectives’ fails to specify objective criteria by which a collective could, without an ethnographic analysis and court determination, identify its membership in the class. This analysis would be part of the infringement analysis which the certification order leaves to a later determination of the individual issues. Moreover, the term ‘Aboriginal collective,’ does not, without more, identify a group that has legal capacity.”

While much attention has been focused on the environmental impact of open net-pen commercial salmon farming on aboriginal people, a successful application for leave to appeal to the SCC would be particularly important as it would consider whether aboriginal collectives can be certified as a class.

Currently, most claims of aboriginal rights and titles brought to the courts are through a representative action where one member of the group becomes the representative plaintiff for the remainder of the group, making it easier to represent all the members of an entity.

However, one of the questions for the top court, pending a successful application for leave to appeal, may become whether the tried-and-true method of representative actions unnecessarily limits or hinders certification as a class action for aboriginal collectives.

Legal Aid Ontario has made plans to reduce the amount of money it spends on refugee and immigration certificates by $1 million this fall in a bid to tackle its deficit.

Starting Sept. 6, LAO lawyers will receive a certificate for a maximum of eight hours for an expedited refugee case. Refugee claimants and immigration clients who are employed and ineligible for legal aid while completing the refugee process will be reassessed to see if they might qualify for legal aid, and refugee certificates will be unbundled with certificate amendments up to a maximum of 16 hours.

Counsel will also receive one certificate that provides retroactive authorization of up to four hours for compiling and submitting information to support a judicial review, plus up to 15 hours to perfect the application. The certificate can also be amended to authorize up to an additional 12 hours to prepare for judicial review under the proposed changes.

“Between 2009 and 2012, LAO expenditures for immigration and refugee legal services increased by 24 per cent,” according to a statement from LAO. “Furthermore, LAO has spent far more on services to refugees than it receives in funding. In 2010/11 LAO spent $21 million for refugee and immigration services. LAO received approximately $7 million from the federal government for these services.”

According to LAO’s Quarterly Performance Overview, it spent $274 million year-to-date December 2011 compared to $266 million the previous year. Of that, roughly $17 million was spent on its refugee certificate program.

Tariff rates for top-tier lawyers in Ontario are currently $117.85 per hour, with refugee certificates increasing by nine per cent over the past two years.

As of Dec. 31, 2011, LAO forecast its annual overall operating deficit at roughly $1 million for 2011-12.

Tariffs have been a source of contention for lawyers who accept legal aid certificates in the past. Criminal lawyers boycotted legal aid for eight months in 2009, saying the rates were too low and the amount of work required to complete their matters exceeded LAO’s maximum hours.

An equity partner is not employee of a law firm and cannot claim the protection of human rights legislation from age discrimination, the British Columbia Court of Appeal has ruled.

Writing in Fasken Martineau Dumoulin LLP v. British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal today, Justice Risa Levine ruled that a partnership is a collective of its partners and thus not a separate legal entity. Therefore Faskens equity partner John McCormick could not be considered an employee of the law firm.

“Of more direct relevance, arising from the same principle, a partner cannot be an employee of the partnership of which he or she is a member, because he or she cannot employ him or herself. . . .” Levine wrote in her decision with Chief Justice Finch and Justice Newbury concurring.

As such, McCormick could not claim the protection of human rights legislation from age discrimination and could be forced by the firm to retire at the age of 65.

Levine continued: “That same body of law makes it a legal impossibility for a partner to be ‘employed’ by the partnership of which he is a member. In my opinion, neither a broad, liberal and purposive interpretation of the [Human Rights Code] nor the analysis of the factual criteria of ‘utilization,’ ‘control,’ ‘financial burden,’ or ‘remedial purpose’ can change that legal conclusion.”

The B.C. Supreme Court ruled last year that McCormick could be considered an employee of the firm as an equity partner, allowing him to go before the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal for alleged age discrimination by Faskens. The firm’s partnership agreement mandates that equity partners must retire at the financial year end of the year in which he turns 65.  

McCormick, a partner at Fasken at the time, was asked to retire when he turned 65 on March 28, 2010. But, because B.C. no longer has a mandatory retirement age of 65, and he wasn’t ready to retire, he took the firm to the human rights tribunal for age discrimination.

The tribunal accepted McCormick’s argument that being an employee extended beyond the common law definition.

When Fasken appealed to the B.C. Supreme Court, Justice Catherine Bruce found McCormick was allowed to bring the complaint because McCormick’s partnership with the firm didn’t fall into the category of a business partnership.

McCormick had argued that the common law characterization of a legal relationship does not apply for human rights purposes, and does not restrict the analysis of the relationship within the jurisdiction of the code.

Faskens had argued that the legal principle of a partnership was not a separate entity but the sum of its partners and therefore beyond the tribunal’s jurisidiction.

Today, Levin agreed, ruling the lower court’s interpretation and conclusion of the Partnership Act and portions of the partnership agreement were an “over-reading” and “legally unsupportable.”

“In my opinion, the chambers judge’s rationale for treating the firm as an entity separate from Mr. McCormick is legally unsupportable,” wrote Levine. “There can be no doubt that in Canadian law, a partnership is not a separate entity from its partners, and a partner cannot be an employee of, or employed by, a partnership of which he is a member.”

Levine continued: “The question is whether this well-established principle of law is over-ridden by a broad, liberal and purposive interpretation of the Code.

According to Levine’s decision, it is not.

“There is no distinction between ‘commercial reality’ and the legal nature of a partnership. The interpretation of the Code, like all statutes, is a legal exercise, where well-established fundamental principles of law apply. If the result of that exercise is that there are gaps in the legislation, it is the task of the legislature to remedy them,” wrote Levine.

Ultimately, the appeal court allowed Faskens’ appeal, set aside the order appealed from, set aside the decision of the Tribunal in 2010, and dismissed McCormick’s complaint on the ground that it was not within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.

Update: 7:45 p.m.

The decision has been much anticipated by law firms across the country, many of which have partnership agreements containing mandatory retirement clauses. They will likely be breathing a sigh of relief over the ruling.

In response to the decision, William Westeringh, the firm's managing partner in Vancouver, said in a statement:  “We are satisfied with the decision, which reinforces our understanding of the law in British Columbia surrounding the terms of partnership agreements. This is an isolated issue that is unprecedented at Fasken Martineau.”

The Canadian Judicial Council Inquiry Committee has released correspondence, submissions, and rulings related to Manitoba Associate Chief Justice Lori Douglas’ inquiry showing Alex Chapman will have limited standing during the ongoing inquiry against Douglas.

The inquiry's ruling means Chapman's lawyer will be able to question Douglas and King on the stand.

Independent lawyers and counsel for Douglas adamently opposed granting Chapman any type of standing.

Douglas is the subject of an investigation by the CJCå that stems from a 2010 sexual harassment complaint launched by Chapman against her. The complaint alleges Douglas sexually harassed and discriminated against him.

According to the notice of allegations against Douglas filed in May, Chapman alleges Douglas knowingly participated with her husband and former law-partner, Jack King, in Chapman’s alleged sexual harassment and should have or ought to have known it would cause him discomfort or humiliation.

The alleged sexual harassment first surfaced between April and June 2003 in Winnipeg, when King directed Chapman to a website where King had posted graphic, nude photos of Douglas, says the notice.

The website also allegedly linked the photos with two ads soliciting black sexual partners for Douglas.

During that time, King also allegedly e-mailed nude, graphic photos of Douglas to Chapman and talked to Chapman by phone, e-mail, and in person in an attempt to solicit his wife to Chapman for sex, the notice alleges.

Douglas, however, maintains she wasn’t aware of the nature of the meetings with Chapman, never had sex with Chapman, and was a victim throughout the process, Douglas’ reply to the allegations against her shows.

King ultimately paid Chapman $25,000 in exchange for a confidentiality agreement surrounding the alleged sexual harassment in 2003.

But in 2010, King sued Chapman for breach of contract for disclosing the nature of the sexual harrasment allegations against him to the CBC and for lodging a complaint with the CJC. In Sept. 2010, the court ordered all photos returned by all parties. The council also recieved two discs containing nude photos of Douglas and several other women unidentified at that time. They have been instructed not to consider them in the inquiry against Douglas.

According to Douglas’ reply to the allegations against her submitted by her counsel in May, King claimed he was going through “a depression” and tried to solicit Chapman to have sex with his wife without her knowledge or consent. It notes Chapman was the first person King ever spoke to about his sexual fantasies involving Douglas.

Douglas, who is an associate chief justice in Manitoba, had been working at the same Winnipeg law firm as her husband at the time. King was representing Chapman in his divorce proceedings at the time of the allegations. He was asked to leave his firm after news of the allegations spread among the Manitoba legal community, the notice shows.

None of the allegations in the notice have been proven.

One of the issues of the inquiry will likely explore further is Douglas’ disclosure in the judicial application process, as well as what information members of the council had at the time she was considered for judicial appointment.

Douglas was appointed as a judge in 2005 and became an associate chief justice in 2009.

Two investigations by the Law Society of Manitoba relating to King’s conduct have since followed. Last year, King pleaded guilty to three counts of professional misconduct and received a reprimand. He admitted sharing photos with Chapman, but his lawyer said his client was acting without his wife’s knowledge.

The Inquiry Committee will resume its public hearings on July 16 at the Federal Court in Winnipeg. It will ultimately consider whether Douglas’ conduct warrants removal from the bench and will hear from Douglas and King.

A 90-day delay has been granted for a group of immigration lawyers fighting to keep their client’s applications intact nearly a week after sweeping changes to Canada’s immigration system came into effect.

Quebec law firm Campbell Cohen and Toronto’s Bellissimo Law Group were granted the extension on behalf of their clients, allowing a 90-day delay in the return of their client’s federal skilled worker applications under Bill C-38.

The delay follows an action by the group, including Toronto lawyer Lorne Waldman, to stop the Canadian government from wiping out the applications of more than 280,000 people who have been waiting to immigrate to Canada since 2008.

“The changes seem to turn immigrants into economic commodities and don’t appear to take into consideration the family and societal values immigrants who may be excluded under the changes could bring to Canada,” says Mario Bellissimo. “What do we say to those people: ‘Sorry you did the right thing but we’re going to close the door on you anyway?’”

He added: “As lawyers and applicants what we’re looking at is, is there the legal authority to do this? People are looking for answers, not refunds, and going to court in some circumstances is one way to find those answers. “

Under the bill, the most sweeping changes were made to the federal skilled worker category. In that category, nearly 280,000 people who applied before Feb. 27, 2008 will have their federal skilled worker applications removed from the current applicant pool and will receive a refund of their fees. They have also been told to reapply under several new guidelines.

Those guidelines include having experience in one of 29 occupations listed by the federal government as in high demand, or having a job offer in Canada.

According Immigration Minister Jason Kenney, the new system aims to speed up the application process for applicants who are young, highly skilled, and have the ability to speak English or French. It also develops a separate category for in-demand tradespeople and business investors.

For those who don’t meet the new guidelines, a pilot program will enable provinces and territories to accept an additional 1,500 people a year from the current backlog of applicants.

Ontario’s process for renewing the appointments of deputy judges of the Small Claims Court does not infringe the principles of judicial independence, the Ontario Court of Appeal has ruled.

Writing in the court’s endorsement of Superior Court Justice Kevin Whitaker’s November 2011 order, Court of Appeal Associate Chief Justice Dennis O’Connor determined the current reappointment process for Ontario’s more than 400 deputy judges does not violate the principles of judicial independence and complies with the principle of security of tenure.

“We agree with the application judge that having regard to the nature of the jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court and the presumption that a regional senior judge will act in the best interest of the administration of justice, that a reasonable and well-informed observer would conclude that the deputy judges and the Ontario Small Claims Court are sufficiently independent so as to satisfy constitutional requirements,” wrote O’Connor in the court’s endorsement.

The Ontario Court of Appeal heard oral arguments from the association and the attorney general in Toronto on June 18. O’Connor and justices Marc Rosenberg and Janet Simmons presided.

The Ontario Deputy Judges’ Association had argued the reappointment process undermined the institutional independence of the Small Claims Court in a way that a reasonable person, fully informed, would not consider it to be independent.The attorney general argued that the courts had consistently ruled its judicial members could be trusted and independence was not an issue.

As of last year, there were more than 400 deputy judges across 90 locations in Ontario. More than 80 per cent of sitting deputy judges have served more than one term and have been reappointed.

The regional senior judge, having the approval of the attorney general, appoints each deputy judge initially. However, the regional senior judges control the reappointment process thereafter and don’t have to provide reasons as to why they reappoint a deputy judge.