CJC wants wider scope for freeze on judicial pensions for judges subject to removal recommendation

Widening the application of proposed legislation is in public interest, says Judicial Council

CJC wants wider scope for freeze on judicial pensions for judges subject to removal recommendation

The Canadian Judicial Council (CJC) has called for a broader application of proposed legislation that would freeze pension entitlements for judges subject to a recommendation for removal by the CJC.

While the CJC said the proposed change was a “welcome and long overdue step in the right direction,” it also recommended the scope be extended to judges already subject to a removal recommendation, and not only those subject to removal recommendation after the legislation has been enacted.

The Minister of Justice had asked for an inquiry and report by the Judicial Compensation and Benefits Commission on the proposed legislation. Though the commission found the proposed change reasonable, it said it was concerned about its effect on judges already subject to a removal recommendation. The justice minister thus amended the proposal so that it would only apply to judges who are subject to a removal recommendation on or after the time of the legislation’s enactment.

Stating that it saw no principled reason for this distinction, the CJC has disapproved of this amended proposal and has called for the justice minister to push through with the original proposal.

“The Council is concerned that the rules as now proposed fall short of the pressing objective of eliminating any incentive for a judge whose removal has been recommended, but who has not yet been removed, to draw the process out,” it said in a news release. “It is in the public interest that the risk of delay tactics at the expense of Canadians be fully eliminated.”

The proposed legislation, which is in response to the CJC’s call for judicial conduct reform, aims to safeguard confidence in the judiciary and to discourage the negative public perception that judges prolong the removal process for the sole purpose of receiving increased pension benefits.

Recent articles & video

Howie Sacks & Henry committed to continued expansion as it sets its sights on the future

State can be liable for damages for passing unconstitutional laws that infringe Charter rights: SCC

Manitoba court dismisses medical malpractice claim due to 'inordinate and inexcusable delay'

Last chance to take part in the 2024 Readers' Choice

BC Supreme Court awards damages for car crash but dismisses loss of earning capacity claims

BC Supreme Court grants limited spousal support due to economic hardship in 21-year marriage

Most Read Articles

Support orders not automatically spent if ‘child of marriage’ hits age of majority: BC appeal court

US federal judge upholds law suspending 97-year-old appeals judge

BC Supreme Court partially varies will to ensure fair estate distribution

Ontario Superior Court approves settlement in mortgage renewal class action