Latest news with #GeoffreyMorawetz
Vancouver Sun
04-07-2025
- Business
- Vancouver Sun
Judges say they need a $60,000 raise to attract top talent. The government disagrees
OTTAWA — Federally appointed judges say their $415,000 salary needs a $60,000 bump to keep the job attractive to top legal applicants. The government says: not in this economy. Since November, the federal government and the judiciary have been quietly but forcibly clashing in front of a quadrennial commission reviewing federally appointed judges' compensation. At the centre of the battle is a single issue: is judges' $414,900 annual salary, plus benefits and pension, enough to keep attracting top legal applicants to fill vacancies in provincial superior and appellate courts or the federal courts? 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. Judges' associations say no and that a $60,000 raise retroactive to April 2024 is necessary to maintain the appeal of the bench. They argue that the judiciary is increasingly struggling to attract 'outstanding candidates' from the private sector because of a growing pay discrepancy between lawyers and judges. But the government says the 'unprecedented' raise request is out of line because judges' current salary and benefits — including 'one of the best retirement plans in Canada' — mean the bench remains an attractive option for qualified candidates. 'Not only does this increase have no legal basis, but it is insensitive to the current economic challenges of Canadians,' government lawyers wrote in their submissions to the commission. In a joint submission, the Canadian Judicial Council (CJC) and the Canadian Superior Courts Judges Association laid out a troubling portrait of the judiciary: overworked judges, a concerning trend of languishing vacancies and diminishing interest in joining the bench from 'outstanding' lawyers in private practice. In their submissions, the judges highlight a 'worrisome' 10 per cent drop in the proportion of appointees to the bench from private practice between 1990 and 2024. That's due to 'persistent, dramatic' 67 per cent gap (worth $300,000 in 2022) between judges' total compensation and the earnings of lawyers at the 75th percentile, the judges argue. '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,' Ontario Superior Court Chief Justice Geoffrey Morawetz wrote in an affidavit to the commission. 'Despite best efforts, I have often found myself unable to persuade qualified potential candidates to apply for judicial appointments. A routinely cited reason for this lack of interest is the combination of the heavy workload of superior court judges and the perceived lack of commensurate pay for that work,' Morawetz continued. The CJC is headed by Canada's Chief Justice Richard Wagner. Last year, Wagner lamented that it's 'very difficult' to be a judge in Canada, that the job doesn't pay enough in some provinces and that conditions are 'deteriorating' for magistrates across the country. But the government is calling nonsense on both claims that judges are underpaid and that the government is struggling to attract top quality candidates to the bench. In its submissions, Ottawa says the 'unprecedented' raise request is out of line because judges' current compensation still guarantees their financial security. Instead, the commission should recommend that their salaries remain indexed at a maximum of 14 per cent over four years. A study conducted on behalf of the government concluded judges' total annual compensation in 2024 was $571,645 when including pension payments. The judicial pension pays two-thirds of a magistrate's salary and is indexed for life, eliminating the need to save for retirement. The government argues that paying judges a raise valued at just under the average Canadian salary ($66,000 in September 2024) would be uncouth at a time of 'geopolitical volatility and uncertainty as well as Canadian's struggles with inflation and the high cost of living.' Government lawyers also note that the judiciary's salary is also indexed annually following the industrial aggregate, allowing for 'generous increases' of 2.73 per cent annually on average in the last 20 years (including a 6.6 per cent increase in 2022). That's well over the rate of inflation calculated via the Consumer Price Index, they argue. 'The evidence shows that outstanding candidates from both private and public practice continue to apply for judicial appointment; matching the judicial salary to the salary of the highest earners in private practice is neither necessary nor appropriate,' government chief general counsel Elizabeth Richards added. In separate submissions, lawyers representing federal associate justices and the chief justice of the Federal Court Paul Crampton argued that associate judges should also see their salaries increased from 80 per cent to 95 per cent of an ordinary judges'. The government also disagreed with this recommendation. The three-member Judicial Compensation and Benefits Commission, chaired by lawyer and businesswoman Anne Giardini, is expected to publish recommendations to the government regarding changes to judges' compensation. That report will then be handed over to the minister of justice, who has four months to say if the government accepts the recommendations or not. 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 .
Hamilton Spectator
19-05-2025
- Politics
- Hamilton Spectator
Lawyer groups are ‘deeply concerned' about proposed changes to civil lawsuits in Ontario
Proposed changes to make Ontario's civil courts more efficient and accessible could backfire while adding unaffordable, upfront costs for clients, legal groups warn. They are now asking the Ford government to reconsider several recommendations contained in a report that's gone out for consultation. 'We are deeply concerned about the changes,' said Allen Wynperle, chair of the non-profit Federation of Ontario Law Associations , adding that apart from the early costs most litigants can't afford, the proposals could 'devastate the viability of small and sole civil practices — the 'Main Street' lawyers who form the backbone of legal service delivery across Ontario.' Last year, Superior Court Chief Justice Geoffrey Morawetz and Attorney General Doug Downey struck a working group to look at the civil system, which has been described as too complex, full of delays and unaffordable for most. 'Our civil justice system, in its present form, is indeed in crisis,' said a report from the civil rules review working group , which said simply adding resources won't solve the underlying issues. 'In fact, access to justice has been at a crisis point for decades … The crisis has only deepened since then and may now fairly be described as existential. Absent impactful reforms, our civil justice system risks becoming irrelevant.' The report said 'delays are only part of the problem … The cost of litigation is prohibitive for many Ontarians. Even those who can afford to access the civil justice system are confronted with the troubling reality of excessive delays and costs, meaning that many civil cases are simply not economically rational to pursue' and could lead to a loss of confidence in the system. Proposed changes include doing away with the discovery process, during which both sides have a chance to interview witnesses and glean information beyond documents, as well changes to other procedural aspects. Consultations wrap up June 16, and legal associations are asking for an extension. 'One size does not fit all, and that is a concern with this proposal,' said Mary-Anne Strong, president of the Ontario Trial Lawyers Association . 'We want to make sure that each case is being considered on its merits, and has the opportunity to be considered on its merits, to get to a just result.' The organization Canadian Defence Lawyers says it is 'very concerned about the proposed changes' and has been urging the attorney general to extend the consultations. The association wants time to 'provide a meaningful response that incorporates alternate solutions,' said president Lisa Pool, but will nonetheless be 'working diligently to meet this deadline' given the government has not signalled it is willing to extend it. Jack Fazzari, a spokesperson for Downey, called it a 'historic review' and said the working group has been 'tasked with delivering on a plan to modernize the system by proposing changes to the rules of civil procedure — this means making the system more efficient, affordable, and accessible.' Downey, he added, 'looks forward to receiving the final recommendations from the civil rules review later this year.' In its second report, the working group called for a 'focus on the interlocutory steps that occur between the notice pleading and the hearing, namely discovery and motions practice. We believe these two areas are where the maximalist approach to litigating is most pronounced' and leading to delays. 'Our proposed reforms aim to strike a practical balance between ensuring litigation is fair, promoting early resolution of disputes, and providing all Ontarians with access to timely and cost-effective civil justice,' it said. Using an 'upfront evidence model' will help determine the strength of cases, it added. 'The proposed reforms will undoubtedly have many initial critics,' the working group said. 'It is important to recognize, however, that while they may appear 'new,' they are not experimental' and follow changes in the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand and Singapore. But legal groups say those systems aren't the same as Ontario's, and that changes made here will lead to more cases heading to trial without the benefit of discoveries — which they say often leads to settlements, avoiding trials — and that the lack of justices and court resources hasn't been addressed. Some also questioned the composition of the working group, saying smaller practitioners in areas impacted should have better representation. The Federation of Ontario Law Associations argues there is no 'reliable court data' backing the recommendations and claims they will improve the system. The working group's recommendation 'front-loads enormous costs that normally do not arise until much later in the civil litigation process,' the association said. 'Most of our clients are not able to commit five figures at the front-end of a lawsuit before the defence is even known.' Strong said oral discoveries, especially in personal injury cases, are 'fundamental to what we do. It's the point where we gather facts that are contained in people's minds, not on documents, and without those facts, we are not going to have all the evidence we need in order to evaluate risk and process the case properly.' As well, 'this consultation does not address where we see the true delay — the true delay is when we go to the courthouse and we seek our court date, and in many cases, we already have a trial date, and we're being told we have no judges, we have no staff, or we have no courtrooms.' While the federal government needs to appoint more judges, and there are 'greater efficiencies that could happen with the trial process,' Strong said, adding the province needs to increase resources in courthouses. 'This proposal is tyring to shorten up what happens before we get there,' she added. 'But if we all rush there, and there's still no resources, we haven't solved the problem.'
CBC
07-03-2025
- Business
- CBC
Ontario court approves major $32.5B tobacco settlement
An Ontario court has approved a historic $32.5 billion settlement that will see three major tobacco companies compensate provinces, territories and ex-smokers in Canada. In a ruling released today, Ontario Superior Court Chief Justice Geoffrey Morawetz called the approval a "momentous achievement in Canadian restructuring history." The settlement was first proposed in October after years of mediation between the companies — JTI-Macdonald Corp., Rothmans, Benson & Hedges and Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd. — and their creditors, which include plaintiffs in two Quebec class-action lawsuits as well as provincial and territorial governments. It was unanimously approved by creditors in December and faced its final hurdle — approval from the court — over several days of hearings that began late last month. The plan calls for the companies to pay more than $24 billion to provinces and territories over about two decades, while plaintiffs in two class-action lawsuits in Quebec will get more than $4 billion to split between them. Another $2.5 billion will go to compensate Canadian smokers not included in the lawsuits, and more than $1 billion will go to a foundation to fight tobacco-related diseases. The money for the foundation also includes $131 million taken from the amount allocated to the Quebec plaintiffs.
Yahoo
28-01-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Historic $32.5B tobacco proposal faces final test in series of hearings
TORONTO — A historic proposal that would see three major tobacco companies pay out billions to provinces and territories as well as former smokers across Canada is set to face its final test over the coming weeks. The proposed $32.5-billion settlement between the companies — JTI-Macdonald Corp., Rothmans, Benson & Hedges and Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd. — and their creditors received unanimous support from those creditors in a vote last month and must now obtain the court's approval. Over roughly half a dozen days of hearings starting Wednesday, the companies and other parties in the case will have the chance to formally voice their concerns or objections regarding the proposed deal. At least one of the companies has opposed the plan that was filed with the court in October, saying it would be impossible to implement unless several key issues were addressed. The Canadian Cancer Society, which is a social stakeholder in the case, has also called for changes to add smoking-reduction measures, warning governments could otherwise fumble a unique opportunity to rein in the tobacco industry and protect the health of Canadians. 'There is a one-time, historic opportunity to get the provisions in the settlement right. It is essential that the settlement contain significant measures to reduce smoking,' Rob Cunningham, the organization's lawyer, said in an email. 'This opportunity will never come again.' Several health advocacy groups have similarly denounced the proposed deal as inadequate, accusing provincial governments of selling out to the tobacco industry by accepting payouts that hinge on future sales of harmful products. The judge overseeing the years-long creditor protection proceedings acknowledged in November there were 'outstanding issues,' including each company's share of the total payout. Ontario Superior Court Chief Justice Geoffrey Morawetz deemed the issues to be resolvable, however, and urged the parties to continue negotiating until the final hearing. If the deal is approved, provinces and territories stand to get more than $24 billion over about two decades, while plaintiffs in two class-action lawsuits in Quebec would get more than $4 billion to split between them. Another $2.5 billion is earmarked for Canadian smokers not included in the lawsuits, and more than $1 billion would go to a foundation to fight tobacco-related diseases. The money for the foundation also includes $131 million taken from the amount allocated to the Quebec plaintiffs. The proposed deal was crafted by the monitors appointed to each company in collaboration with a mediator, capping off more than five years of confidential negotiations. Morawetz has called the case one of "the most complex insolvency proceedings in Canadian history." The legal saga began in Quebec with a landmark ruling that found the companies had chosen profits over the health of their customers and ordered them to pay about $15 billion to plaintiffs in two class-action lawsuits. The case migrated to Ontario in 2019 when the companies sought creditor protection after the Quebec ruling was upheld on appeal. All legal proceedings against the three giants were frozen during the negotiations, an order that has now been extended until the end of January. The companies faced claims of more than $1 trillion in total, including lawsuits from provincial governments seeking to recover smoking-related health-care costs, court documents show. Along with the proposed deal itself, the court must also approve the fees sought by lawyers in the Quebec class actions. Court documents show the lawyers are seeking approval for more than $900 million in compensation for more than 175,000 hours of work in the case that began in the late 1990s. The fee represents 22 per cent of the plaintiffs' share of the settlement and includes tens of millions of dollars in costs incurred during the litigation, as well as future costs related to the claims process, the documents show. This report by The Canadian Press was first published Jan. 28, 2025. Paola Loriggio, The Canadian Press
