Ruling expected Monday in Yukon court case with major implications for government
The Yukon's ombudsman and child and youth advocate filed a petition seeking a court order that would undo changes to their offices' budgets imposed by officials with the finance department.
Justice Edith Campbell is expected to deliver her decision Monday.
Over two days of arguments this past week, lawyers for both sides plumbed the most arcane depths of the law.
At the heart of the dispute is a conflict between the executive branch of government (also known as cabinet) and the legislative branch.
Historically, the budgets of independent officers have been approved by the Members Services Board, a five-member, all-party committee of the legislature that manages the assembly's affairs. That's because the legislative assembly as a whole and the government are not the same thing.
Shauna Stikeman, who's representing the child and youth advocate, argued the legislation that established the ombudsman office clearly set out a budgeting process that is meant to keep the office free from political interference from the government.
Allowing the finance minister to muck about with those budgets, she said, opens up the risk that governments could punish the independent officers when they issue findings the government doesn't like.
"Any erosion of this trust risks eroding public confidence in these institutions," Stikeman said. "This is about so much more than dollars and cents."
Lawyers for the government, meanwhile, say the territory's Financial Administration Act takes clear precedence and requires that every dime of public funds must pass through, and be approved by, the finance department's Management Board.
"There is no category of money out there that isn't captured by the Financial Administration Act," said government lawyer I.H. Fraser.
Fraser also tried to squeeze the petitioners' case between two other legal principles. For one thing, he argued, the officers' budgets are now shielded from court action by parliamentary privilege, a unique set of rights that extends to the assembly and its members.
While parliamentary privilege normally applies to actions within the assembly, Fraser said privilege also applies to bills that are in the process of being drafted (in this case, the territorial budget).
"If you're in the legislative process, then parliamentary privilege applies," he told Campbell this week.
"There's nothing a court can properly do about it."
At the same time, Fraser said the petitioners' case is premature because the legislature has yet to sit — the spring session begins March 6 — and finalize the budget.
Floyd McCormick, the clerk of the Legislative Assembly from 2001 to 2019, said the case shows the need for clearer rules to protect the assembly's independence.
"Regardless of how it turns out, whether the ombudsman and the child and youth advocate are successful or not, the legislature needs to change legislation in order to make sure that it's clear that Member Services Board authority is distinct from that of the Department of Finance," he said.
McCormick, who was in the courtroom for two days of arguments, acknowledged he supports the independent officers in the case. But he said the issues at play are important and, to him at least, interesting.
"You have one side making their arguments and you feel that's pretty solid. And then the other side gets up and make arguments and well, you know, these people have a good point too," he said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Vancouver Sun
5 hours ago
- Vancouver Sun
Report finds judges' $414,900 salary 'inadequate' to attract top talent, recommends $28,000 raise
OTTAWA — The commission tasked with reviewing judicial compensation says that $414,900 per year isn't enough to keep the bench attractive to top applicants and recommends the government increase judges' salaries by at least $28,000. 'The current salary and benefits paid to judges are inadequate,' reads a report by the commission reviewing federally appointed judges' compensation that was tabled in the House of Commons Wednesday. 'An increase to the judicial salary is required to ensure outstanding candidates continue to be attracted to the judiciary.' Start your day with a roundup of B.C.-focused news and opinion. By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc. A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it, please check your junk folder. The next issue of Sunrise will soon be in your inbox. Please try again Interested in more newsletters? Browse here. The report recommends boosting judges' salaries by $28,000 for regular provincial superior and appellate courts as well as federal courts, $30,000 for chief justices and $36,000 for the chief justice of the Supreme Court, all retroactive to April 2024. Most federally appointed judges currently make $414,900 (except members of the Supreme Court who make $494,100) and chief justices earn about $40,000 more. Their salaries are indexed annually following the industrial aggregate, which generally exceeds the Consumer Price Index. The commission also recommends increasing the salary of associate judges from 80 per cent to 95 per cent of a regular federally appointed justice. The report was sent in July to Justice Minister Sean Fraser, who has four months to decide how he will respond to the recommendations impacting over 1,200 judges. The suggested raise would cost the government over $34 million. The decision is far from simple for Fraser as Prime Minister Mark Carney looks to cut the federal government's salary and operating costs. Carney has asked each department to cut their budget by 15 per cent in the next few years amid growing concern over government spending. In a statement, Fraser's spokesperson, Jeremy Bellefeuille, said the minister was reviewing the report and would respond in due time. The commission's report focuses on a single issue at the centre of a months-long battle between the government and the judiciary: is judges' annual compensation enough to keep attracting top legal applicants to provincial and federal courts? As National Post reported in July , judges' associations argued magistrates needed a $60,000 raise retroactive to April 2024 to maintain the appeal of a job that is increasingly struggling to attract 'outstanding candidates.' The federal government countered that judges' salary and benefits — including 'one of the best retirement plans in Canada' — did not require a $60,000 'bonus' to keep the job attractive. Ultimately, the commission's conclusion fell squarely in the middle. Whereas it agreed with judges that the salary is too low to continue attracting top applicants in the long run, it also found that $60,000 was too much. 'The Commission agrees with the Judiciary that the significant gap between judicial salaries and the private sector comparator warrants an increase to the current judicial salary; however, we do not agree with the amount of the increase proposed by the Judiciary,' reads the report. 'Our recommendation is intended to be fair to the judiciary and to the taxpayer, to strike the right balance between the two, and to be in the public interest.' The key concern highlighted by both judges' associations and the commission's report is that too few 'highly qualified' private-sector lawyers are applying to become judges. That could ultimately lead to a dearth of necessary skills and expertise on the bench in the long term, concluded the three-member Judicial Compensation and Benefits Commission chaired by lawyer and businesswoman Anne Giardini. The diminishing interest also means vacant positions will be harder and take longer to fill, risking another 'crisis' like one in 2023 when the judicial vacancy rate sat at nearly 10 per cent. 'While a shortage has been averted for now, the pressures of rising private sector incomes are such that the ability to maintain an adequate level of private sector appointments to fill judicial vacancies is of ongoing concern. We are persuaded that the effects of past shortages are continuing to rebound within the justice system,' reads the report. 'So while the pool of individuals in the last 4-year period was more than adequate to fill all the positions, we see clear warning signs that salaries are going to be a factor leading to highly qualified private sector lawyers electing not to apply to the judiciary.' The commission said it was particularly swayed by comments by Ontario Superior Court Chief Justice Geoffrey Morawetz detailing his struggle in convincing private sector lawyers to join the court. 'An increasing number of qualified private practitioners no longer view a judicial appointment, considering its attendant responsibilities and benefits, as attractive in light of the resulting significant reduction in income,' Morawetz wrote in an affidavit to the commission. National Post cnardi@ Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark and sign up for our politics newsletter, First Reading, here .
National Post
5 hours ago
- National Post
Report finds judges' $414,900 salary 'inadequate' to attract top talent, recommends $28,000 raise
Minister of Justice Sean Fraser in his new office at the Justice building on Parliament Hill. Photo by JULIE OLIVER / Postmedia OTTAWA — The commission tasked with reviewing judicial compensation says that $414,900 per year isn't enough to keep the bench attractive to top applicants and recommends the government increase judges' salaries by at least $28,000. THIS CONTENT IS RESERVED FOR SUBSCRIBERS Enjoy the latest local, national and international news. Exclusive articles by Conrad Black, Barbara Kay and others. Plus, special edition NP Platformed and First Reading newsletters and virtual events. Unlimited online access to National Post. National Post ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition to view on any device, share and comment on. Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword. Support local journalism. SUBSCRIBE FOR MORE ARTICLES Enjoy the latest local, national and international news. Exclusive articles by Conrad Black, Barbara Kay and others. Plus, special edition NP Platformed and First Reading newsletters and virtual events. Unlimited online access to National Post. National Post ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition to view on any device, share and comment on. Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword. Support local journalism. REGISTER / SIGN IN TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account. Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments. Enjoy additional articles per month. Get email updates from your favourite authors. THIS ARTICLE IS FREE TO READ REGISTER TO UNLOCK. Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments Enjoy additional articles per month Get email updates from your favourite authors 'The current salary and benefits paid to judges are inadequate,' reads a report by the commission reviewing federally appointed judges' compensation that was tabled in the House of Commons Wednesday. 'An increase to the judicial salary is required to ensure outstanding candidates continue to be attracted to the judiciary.' The report recommends boosting judges' salaries by $28,000 for regular provincial superior and appellate courts as well as federal courts, $30,000 for chief justices and $36,000 for the chief justice of the Supreme Court, all retroactive to April 2024. Most federally appointed judges currently make $414,900 (except members of the Supreme Court who make $494,100) and chief justices earn about $40,000 more. Their salaries are indexed annually following the industrial aggregate, which generally exceeds the Consumer Price Index. The commission also recommends increasing the salary of associate judges from 80 per cent to 95 per cent of a regular federally appointed justice. The report was sent in July to Justice Minister Sean Fraser, who has four months to decide how he will respond to the recommendations impacting over 1,200 judges. The suggested raise would cost the government over $34 million. The decision is far from simple for Fraser as Prime Minister Mark Carney looks to cut the federal government's salary and operating costs. Carney has asked each department to cut their budget by 15 per cent in the next few years amid growing concern over government spending. In a statement, Fraser's spokesperson, Jeremy Bellefeuille, said the minister was reviewing the report and would respond in due time. The commission's report focuses on a single issue at the centre of a months-long battle between the government and the judiciary: is judges' annual compensation enough to keep attracting top legal applicants to provincial and federal courts? As National Post reported in July, judges' associations argued magistrates needed a $60,000 raise retroactive to April 2024 to maintain the appeal of a job that is increasingly struggling to attract 'outstanding candidates.' The federal government countered that judges' salary and benefits — including 'one of the best retirement plans in Canada' — did not require a $60,000 'bonus' to keep the job attractive.
CBC
7 days ago
- CBC
Separating fact from fiction in the U.S.-Canada softwood lumber trade war
The lumber mills on Mitchell Island along the Fraser River are still bustling, but there are worries they could be in trouble. Last Friday, the U.S. Department of Commerce announced a big hike on duties for Canadian softwood lumber. Other anti-dumping fees were announced in July. That means Canadian lumber is now subject to duties of more than 35 per cent. We speak with Kevin Mason, the managing director of ERA Forest Products Research, who provides some context on the ongoing trade dispute.
