New Brunswick Provincial Court Judges' Association et al. v. New Brunswick (Minister of Justice), (2005) 201 O.A.C. 293 (SCC)

JudgeMcLachlin, C.J.C., Major, Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella and Charron, JJ.
CourtSupreme Court (Canada)
Case DateNovember 09, 2004
JurisdictionCanada (Federal)
Citations(2005), 201 O.A.C. 293 (SCC);2005 SCC 44;[2005] SCJ No 47 (QL);288 NBR (2d) 202;[2006] 1 WWR 407;[2005] ACS no 47;30 Admin LR (4th) 1;135 CRR (2d) 55;336 NR 201;346 WAC 300;201 OAC 293;JE 2005-1362;141 ACWS (3d) 213;49 Alta LR (4th) 211;367 AR 300;[2005] 2 SCR 286;255 DLR (4th) 513

Provincial Court Judges v. N.B. (2005), 201 O.A.C. 293 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

....................

Temp. Cite: [2005] O.A.C. TBEd. JL.080

Provincial Court Judges' Association of New Brunswick, Honourable Judge Michael McKee and Honourable Judge Steven Hutchinson (appellants) v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of New Brunswick, as represented by the Minister of Justice (respondent) and Attorney General of Canada, Attorney General of Ontario, Attorney General of Quebec, Attorney General of British Columbia, Attorney General for Saskatchewan, Attorney General of Alberta, Canadian Association of Provincial Court Judges, Ontario Conference of Judges and Federation of Law Societies of Canada (intervenors)

Ontario Judges' Association, Ontario Family Law Judges' Association and Ontario Provincial Court (Civil Division) Judges' Association (appellants) v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of Ontario, as represented by the Chair of Management Board (respondent) and Attorney General of Quebec, Attorney General of Alberta, Canadian Bar Association and Federation of Law Societies of Canada (intervenors)

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Alberta and the Lieutenant Governor in Council (appellants) v. Chereda Bodner, Robert Philp, Timothy Stonehouse, William Martin, Waldo B. Ranson, Glenn Morrison, Q.C., Johnathan H.B. Moss, David M. Duggan, Mark W. Gruman, Patrick McIlhargy, John R. Shaw and Gregory Francis (respondents) and Attorney General of Canada, Attorney General of Ontario, Attorney General of Quebec, Attorney General of New Brunswick, Attorney General of British Columbia, Attorney General for Saskatchewan, Canadian Superior Court Judges Association, Ontario Conference of Judges, Conférence des juges du Québec, Canadian Association of Provincial Court Judges, Association of Justices of the Peace of Ontario, Judicial Justice of the Peace Association of British Columbia and Federation of Law Societies of Canada (intervenors)

Attorney General of Quebec and Minister of Justice of Quebec (appellants) v. Conférence des juges du Québec, Maurice Abud, Claude C. Boulanger, Marc Vanasse, Gilles Gagnon, Jacques R. Roy, Gérald Laforest, Jean-François Gosselin, Hubert Couture, Michael Sheehan, Yvan Mayrand, Dominique Slater, Guy Gagnon, Mireille Allaire, Anne Laberge, Armando Aznar, Jean-Pierre Lortie, Guy Lecompte, Huguette St-Louis, Rémi Bouchard, Michel Jasmin, Jacques Lachapelle, Louise Provost, Michèle Rivet, Paule Lafontaine, Rosaire Larouche, Réal R. Lapointe, Claude Chicoine, Céline Pelletier, René de la Sablonnière, Gabriel de Pokomandy, Jean R. Beaulieu, Michel Beauchemin, Jacques Trudel, Denis Bouchard, Ruth Veillet, Gilson Lachance, Claude Parent, Michel L. Auger, Lise Gaboury and Jean Alarie (respondents) and Attorney General of New Brunswick and Federation of Law Societies of Canada (intervenors)

Attorney General of Quebec and Minister of Justice of Quebec (appellants) v. Morton S. Minc,

Denis Boisvert, Antonio Discepola, Yves Fournier, Gilles Gaumond, Louise Baribeau, Jean-Pierre Bessette, Pierre D. Denault, René Déry, Gérard Duguay, Pierre Fontaine, Pierre Gaston, Denis Laliberté, Louis-Jacques Léger, Jean Massé, Evasio Massignani, Ronald Schachter, Bernard Caron, Jean Charbonneau and Raymonde Verreault (respondents) and Attorney General of New Brunswick and Federation of Law Societies of Canada (intervenors)

Conférence des juges municipaux du Québec (appellant) v. Conférence des juges du Québec and Attorney General of Quebec (respondents) and Attorney General of New Brunswick and Federation of Law Societies of Canada (intervenors)

(30006, 30148, 29525, 30477; 2005 SCC 44; 2005 CSC 44)

Indexed As: New Brunswick Provincial Court Judges' Association et al. v. New Brunswick (Minister of Justice)

Supreme Court of Canada

McLachlin, C.J.C., Major, Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella and Charron, JJ.

July 22, 2005.

Summary:

New Brunswick Provincial Court Judges sought an order requiring the Province of New Brunswick to fully implement the recommendations of the 2001 Judicial Remuneration Commission which reviewed their salary and benefits.

The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, in a decision reported at 249 N.B.R.(2d) 275; 648 A.P.R. 275, allowed the application respecting some of the recommendations. The Judges appealed.

The New Brunswick Court of Appeal, in a decision reported at 260 N.B.R.(2d) 201; 684 A.P.R. 201, dismissed the appeal. The Judges appealed.

In a similar case, the Fourth Triennial (1998-2001) Remuneration Commission made recommendations respecting the salaries and pensions of Ontario Provincial judges. The salary recommendations were binding on the government and were implemented. However, the government rejected the pension recommendations. Associations representing the Provincial judges applied for judicial review.

The Ontario Divisional Court, in a decision reported at 157 O.A.C. 367, dismissed the application. The Associations appealed.

The Ontario Court of Appeal, in a decision reported at 178 O.A.C. 311, dismissed the appeal. The Associations appealed.

In a similar case, the Justices of the Peace Compensation Commission prepared a report pursuant to the Justices of the Peace Compensation Commission Regulation. The Commission concluded that two thirds of Provincial Court Judges' compensation was appropriate. Alberta issued the Justices of the Peace Compensation Order, which purported to accept, reject and modify certain portions of the Report. The Justices of the Peace sought declarations that certain provisions of the Order were unconstitutional.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported at 296 A.R. 22, granted a declaration. The court held that, apart from three errors made by the Commission, the Crown could not depart from the Commission's recommendations because there were no rational reasons to do so.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported at 300 A.R. 170, held that the appropriate remedy was to implement the Commission's Report. The court held that the three errors should be dealt with by the next Commission because the Crown did not point out the errors to the Commission for possible variation of its report, but chose to include them in its impugned order. The court awarded solicitor client costs of both applications to the Justices of the Peace. Alberta appealed.

The Alberta Court of Appeal, Côté, J.A., dissenting in part, in a decision reported at 317 A.R. 112; 284 W.A.C. 112, dismissed the appeal. Côté, J.A., would have ordered the Lieutenant Governor in Council to reconsider its decision having regard to certain delineated factors. Alberta appealed.

In a similar case, a judicial compensation committee made salary recommendations respecting judges of the Court of Quebec and municipal court judges in Laval, Montreal and Quebec City. A second panel of the Committee addressed the compensation of judges of the municipal courts outside of Laval, Montreal and Quebec City. The Quebec government rejected most of the important recommendations. The Conférence des juges du Québec, which represented the judges dealt with by the first panel of the Committee, challenged the government's response in court. The Quebec Superior Court and the Quebec Court of Appeal held that the government's response did not meet the test of rationality. The Conférence des juges municipaux du Québec, which represented the judges dealt with by the second panel of the Committee, had not challenged the government's response. It was denied leave to intervene in the Court of Appeal. The Attorney General of Quebec and Minister of Justice of Quebec appealed. The Conférence des juges municipaux du Québec appealed the denial of their leave application. The appeals from New Brunswick, Ontario, Alberta and Quebec were heard and decided together.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeals in the New Brunswick, Ontario and Quebec cases. The appeal in the Alberta case was allowed. The appeal by the Conférence des juges municipaux du Québec was allowed in part. The court granted it leave to intervene for the sole purpose of declaring that the invalidity of the Quebec government's response extended to those parts of it which affected the judges represented by the Conférence.

Constitutional Law - Topic 8655

Judges (incl. Justices of the Peace) - Independence - The Justices of the Peace Compensation Commission prepared a report pursuant to the Justices of the Peace Compensation Commission Regulation - Alberta issued an order which rejected many of the Commission's key recommendations - The Justices of the Peace sought declarations that the order was unconstitutional because it interfered with judicial independence - Alberta argued, inter alia, that the judicial independence of Justices of the Peace did not warrant the same degree of constitutional protection that was provided by an independent, objective commission - The Supreme Court of Canada disagreed - Justices of the Peace in Alberta exercised an important judicial role - Their function had expanded over the years and required constitutional protection - In any event, Alberta had already provided an independent commission process through the Justices of the Peace Compensation Commission Regulation - This process had to be followed - See paragraph 121.

Constitutional Law - Topic 8660

Judges (incl. Justices of the Peace) - Compensation - [See Constitutional Law - Topic 8655 ].

Courts - Topic 430

Judges - Compensation - Independent reports and recommendations - The Supreme Court of Canada stated, inter alia, that the compensation commission process respecting provincial court judges was flexible and its purpose was not simply to "update" the previous commission's report - However, in the absence of reasons to the contrary, the starting point should be the date of the previous commission's report - The reports of previous commissions and their outcomes formed part of the background and context that a new compensation committee should consider - A new commission could decide that, in the circumstances, its predecessors conducted a thorough review of judicial compensation and that, in the absence of demonstrated change, only minor adjustments were necessary - However, if it considered that previous reports failed to set compensation and benefits at the appropriate level due to particular circumstances, the new commission could legitimately go beyond the findings of the previous commission, and after a careful review, make its own recommendations on that basis - See paragraphs 14 and 15.

Courts - Topic 430

Judges - Compensation - Independent reports and recommendations - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that it was a constitutional requirement that compensation commissions respecting provincial court judges be independent, objective and effective - One requirement for independence was that commission members serve for a fixed term which may vary in length - Appointments to a commission were not entrusted exclusively to any one of the branches of government - The appointment process itself should be flexible - The commission's composition was legislated but it had to be representative of the parties - The commission had to objectively consider the submissions of all parties and any relevant factors identified in the enabling statute and regulations - Its recommendations had to result from a fair and objective hearing - Its report had to explain and justify its position - See paragraphs 16 and 17.

Courts - Topic 430

Judges - Compensation - Independent reports and recommendations - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that the work of compensation commissions respecting provincial court judges had to have a "meaningful effect" on the process of determining judicial remuneration - "Meaningful effect" did not mean binding effect - A commission's report was consultative - The government could turn it into something more - Unless the legislature provided that the report was binding, the government retained the power to depart from the commission's recommendations as long as it justified its decision with rational reasons - These rational reasons had to be included in the government's response to the commission's recommendations - See paragraphs 18 to 21.

Courts - Topic 430

Judges - Compensation - Independent reports and recommendations - The Supreme Court of Canada stated the requirements of a government's response to the recommendations of a compensation commission respecting provincial court judges - The commission's recommendations had to be given weight - The government could reject or vary the commission's recommendations, provided that legitimate reasons were given - Reasons that were complete and that dealt with the commission's recommendations in a meaningful way would meet the standard of rationality - The court outlined the scope of the government's reasons - The court stated that comparisons with public servants or with the private sector might be legitimate, but the use of a particular comparator had to be explained - If a new fact or circumstance arose after the release of the commission's report, the government could rely on that fact or circumstance in its reasons for varying the commission's recommendations - It was also permissible for the government to analyze the impact of the recommendations and to verify the accuracy of information in the commission's report - See paragraphs 22 to 27.

Courts - Topic 430

Judges - Compensation - Independent reports and recommendations - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that the government's response to the recommendations of a compensation commission respecting provincial court judges was subject to a limited form of judicial review by the superior courts - The government's decision to depart from the commission's recommendations had to be justified according to a standard of rationality - This standard was described in the Reference re Remuneration of the Provincial Court (P.E.I.) as one of "simple rationality" - The adjective "simple" merely confirmed that the standard was rationality alone - The reviewing court was not asked to determine the adequacy of judicial remuneration - Instead, it had to focus on the government's response and on whether the purpose of the commission process has been achieved - This was a deferential review which acknowledged both the government's unique position and accumulated expertise and its constitutional responsibility for management of the province's financial affairs - See paragraphs 28 to 30.

Courts - Topic 430

Judges - Compensation - Independent reports and recommendations - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that a government's decision to depart from the commission's recommendations was reviewed according to a standard of rationality - In the Reference re Remuneration of the Provincial Court (P.E.I.), the court set out a two-stage analysis for determining the rationality of the government's response to a commission's recommendations - First, had the government articulated a legitimate reason for departing from the commission's recommendations - Second, did the government's reasons rely upon a reasonable factual foundation - The court now added a third stage to the analysis: viewed globally, had the commission process been respected and had the purposes of the commission, preserving judicial independence and depoliticizing the setting of judicial remuneration, been achieved? - The court reviewed each stage of the analysis - See paragraphs 28 to 41.

Courts - Topic 430

Judges - Compensation - Independent reports and recommendations - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that the limited nature of the judicial review of a government's decision to depart from the commission's recommendations (standard of rationality) dictated the choice of remedies - If the commission process had not been effective, and the setting of judicial remuneration had not been "depoliticized", then the appropriate remedy would generally be to return the matter to the government for reconsideration - If problems could be traced to the commission, the matter could be referred back to it - Should the commission no longer be active, the government would be obliged to appoint a new one to resolve the problems - Courts should avoid issuing specific orders to make the recommendations binding unless the governing statutory scheme gave them that option - See paragraphs 42 to 44.

Courts - Topic 430

Judges - Compensation - Independent reports and recommendations - The Province of New Brunswick rejected a recommendation for salary increases for New Brunswick Provincial Court Judges made by the 2001 Judicial Remuneration Commission - The New Brunswick Court of Appeal held that four affidavits admitted into evidence by the applications judge on judicial review to support the Province's decision to reject the Commission's salary recommendation were inadmissible because they introduced evidence and facts not contained in the Province's response - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the affidavits simply went into the specifics of the factual foundation relied upon by the Province - They showed how calculations were made and what data were available - They contributed to showing the consideration given to the recommendation - This was permissible and the affidavits were admissible - See paragraphs 60 to 64.

Courts - Topic 430

Judges - Compensation - Independent reports and recommendations - The Province of New Brunswick rejected the salary increase recommended by the 2001 Judicial Remuneration Commission for New Brunswick Provincial Court Judges - The Province argued that, when making salary recommendations, the Commission's primary purpose was to ensure that compensation levels did not fall below the adequate minimum required to guarantee judicial independence - The Supreme Court of Canada rejected the argument - The Commission's purpose was to depoliticize the remuneration process and to avoid direct confrontation between the government and the judiciary - The Commission's aim was neither to determine the minimum remuneration nor to achieve maximal conditions - Its role was to recommend an appropriate level of remuneration - See paragraphs 65 to 67.

Courts - Topic 430

Judges - Compensation - Independent reports and recommendations - The Province of New Brunswick rejected the salary increase recommended by the 2001 Judicial Remuneration Commission for New Brunswick Provincial Court Judges for several reasons - One reason was that it considered the recommended raise to be excessive because it failed to take account of economic conditions in New Brunswick and was instead based on a desire to maintain partial parity with federally appointed judges - Another reason was that the judges' existing salary was adequate - The Province relied on indexes and economic data and on the ability to attract qualified candidates with the existing salary and alleged that an increase based on inflation would be sufficient to maintain the adequacy of the judges' remuneration - The Supreme Court of Canada held that these reasons for rejecting the Commission's recommendations met the rationality standard - Overall, the principles of the Reference re Remuneration (P.E.I.) had been respected and the criticisms of the Province's response were properly dismissed - See paragraphs 59, 65 and 68 to 84.

Courts - Topic 430

Judges - Compensation - Independent reports and recommendations - The Province of New Brunswick rejected the salary increase recommended by the 2001 Judicial Remuneration Commission for New Brunswick Provincial Court Judges for several reasons - One reason was that it considered the recommended raise to be excessive because it failed to take account of economic conditions in New Brunswick and was instead based on a desire to maintain partial parity with federally appointed judges - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that it was inappropriate to determine the remuneration of Provincial Court judges in New Brunswick by applying the percentage ratio of average incomes in New Brunswick to those in Canada to the salary of federally appointed judges, because the salary of federally appointed judges was based on lawyers' earnings in major Canadian cities, not the average Canadian income - See paragraph 72.

Courts - Topic 430

Judges - Compensation - Independent reports and recommendations - The Province of New Brunswick rejected the salary increase recommended by the 2001 Judicial Remuneration Commission for New Brunswick Provincial Court Judges for several reasons - One reason given was that the judges' existing salary was adequate - This argument had been rejected by the Commission on the ground that to accept it would lead to a salary freeze in violation of the principles stated in Reference re Remuneration (P.E.I.) - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the Commission committed an error of law in taking that position - The Reference case did not make salary increases mandatory - See paragraph 76.

Courts - Topic 430

Judges - Compensation - Independent reports and recommendations - A commission made recommendations respecting Ontario Provincial judges' salaries and pensions - The salary recommendations (28 percent increase) were binding - The commission did not provide costs calculations for implementing the pension recommendations based on the new salaries - The government retained independent actuaries to determine the cost - The government subsequently rejected the recommendations for seven reasons - The reasons noted that the 28 percent salary increase automatically increased the value of the pension, no demographic changes had occurred since the pension structure was reviewed by a commission in 1991 and explained that Ontario was in a period of fiscal restraint and that many areas were facing reduction - The judges sought judicial review, asserting that the government's reasons for not accepting the recommendations did not meet the simple rationality test - The Supreme Court of Canada analyzed the government's reasons and held that they met the rationality test - See paragraphs 96 to 102.

Courts - Topic 430

Judges - Compensation - Independent reports and recommendations - A commission made recommendations respecting Ontario Provincial judges' salaries and pensions - The salary recommendations were binding - The commission did not provide costs calculations for implementing the pension recommendations based on the new salaries - The government retained independent actuaries to determine the cost - The government subsequently rejected the pension recommendations - The judges sought judicial review, asserting that the engagement of the actuaries contravened the constitutional process and the Framework Agreement which governed the commission's jurisdiction and terms of reference - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that it was reasonable for the government to retain actuaries to provide advice about the implementation costs - The effectiveness of the commission process was not undermined - Rather, it demonstrated the government's good faith and the serious consideration to the commission's recommendations - The Supreme Court of Canada agreed - See paragraph 101.

Courts - Topic 430

Judges - Compensation - Independent reports and recommendations - A commission made recommendations respecting Ontario Provincial judges' salaries and pensions - The salary recommendations were binding - The commission did not provide costs calculations for implementing the pension recommendations based on the new salaries - The government retained independent actuaries to determine the cost - The government rejected the recommendations - The judges sought judicial review - The judges opposed the admission of affidavit evidence of one of the actuaries - The Supreme Court of Canada agreed with the Ontario Divisional Court and the Court of Appeal that the admission of the affidavits was proper - The affidavits did not add a new position - They merely illustrated the government's good faith and its commitment to taking the Commission's recommendations seriously - See paragraph 103.

Courts - Topic 430

Judges - Compensation - Independent reports and recommendations - The Justices of the Peace Compensation Commission prepared a report pursuant to the Justices of the Peace Compensation Commission Regulation - Alberta issued an order which accepted the bulk of the Commission's recommendations - Alberta rejected the specific level of salary increases for eight reasons and substituted a modified amount - In its reasons, Alberta discussed general fiscal policy, various comparator groups, inflation and the roles and responsibilities of Justices of the Peace - The Justices of the Peace sought judicial review - The Supreme Court of Canada held that Alberta's reasons satisfied the rationality test - The process was taken seriously - The reasons for variation were legitimate - Viewed globally, it appeared that the process of the Commission, as a consultative body created to depoliticize the issue of judicial remuneration, had been effective - See paragraphs 122 to 131.

Courts - Topic 430

Judges - Compensation - Independent reports and recommendations - Two panels of a judicial compensation committee made salary recommendations respecting judges of the Court of Quebec and municipal court judges - The Quebec government rejected most of the important recommendations - The judges successfully argued on judicial review that the government's reasons for rejecting the recommendations did not meet the rationality test - The Supreme Court of Canada held that, on the core issue of judicial salaries, the government's reasons did not meet the standard of rationality - The reasons failed to address most of the committee's important recommendations and the justifications given for them - Rather than responding, the government appeared to have been content to restate its original position without answering certain key justifications for the recommendations - See paragraphs 157 to 165.

Courts - Topic 430

Judges - Compensation - Independent reports and recommendations - [See Constitutional Law - Topic 8655 ].

Courts - Topic 1345

Justices of the Peace - Independence - Financial security - [See Constitutional Law - Topic 8655 and sixteenth Courts - Topic 430 ].

Practice - Topic 682

Parties - Adding or substituting parties - Intervenors - Interest in subject matter - Two panels of a judicial compensation committee made salary recommendations respecting judges of the Court of Quebec and two groups of municipal court judges (full-time and part-time judges) - The Quebec government rejected many of the recommendations - Judges of the Court of Quebec and the full-time municipal court judges sought judicial review - When their applications reached the Court of Appeal, the part-time municipal court judges sought leave to intervene - The Quebec Court of Appeal denied the application - The part-time municipal court judges appealed - The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal in part - The recommendations concerning the three groups of judges were closely linked - The recommendations concerning compensation levels for full-time municipal judges were based on a comparative analysis with judges of the Court of Quebec - The situation of the part-time judges was then compared with that of full-time municipal judges - The successful challenge launched by the other two groups of judges benefited the part-time judges - The court allowed their intervention for the sole purpose of declaring that the Quebec government's response to the recommendations was also void respecting their compensation - See paragraphs 169 and 170.

Practice - Topic 685

Parties - Adding or substituting parties - Intervenors - On appeal - [See Practice - Topic 682 ].

Practice - Topic 7454

Costs - Solicitor and client costs - Entitlement to - Improper, irresponsible or unconscionable conduct - The Justices of the Peace Compensation Commission prepared a report pursuant to the Justices of the Peace Compensation Commission Regulation - Alberta issued an order which rejected some of the Commission's key recommendations - A chambers judge declared that the order was unconstitutional and awarded solicitor client costs to the Justices of the Peace - The Alberta Court of Appeal affirmed the costs award - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the solicitor client costs award was not warranted - Neither party had displayed reprehensible, scandalous or outrageous conduct - While the protection of judicial independence was a noble objective, it was not by itself sufficient to warrant an award of solicitor-client costs in the case at bar - See paragraph 132.

Quebec Procedure - Topic 3075

Incidental proceedings - Voluntary intervention - Intervenant's probable interest - General - [See Practice - Topic 682 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Valente, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 673; 64 N.R. 1; 14 O.A.C. 79, refd to. [para. 2].

Reference Re Remuneration of Judges of the Provincial Court (P.E.I.), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 3; 217 N.R. 1; 206 A.R. 1; 156 W.A.C. 1; 121 Man.R.(2d) 1; 158 W.A.C. 1; 156 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 1; 483 A.P.R. 1, refd to. [para. 3].

Beauregard v. Canada, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 56; 70 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 4].

Ell et al. v. Alberta, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 857; 306 N.R. 1; 330 A.R. 201; 299 W.A.C. 232; 2003 SCC 35, refd to. [para. 4].

Anti-Inflation Act, Re, [1976] 2 S.C.R. 373; 9 N.R. 541, refd to. [para. 33].

Mackin v. New Brunswick (Minister of Finance) - see Rice, P.C.J. v. New Brunswick.

Rice, P.C.J. v. New Brunswick, [2002] 1 S.C.R. 405; 282 N.R. 201; 245 N.B.R.(2d) 299; 636 A.P.R. 299; 209 D.L.R.(4th) 564; 220 SCC 13, refd to. [para. 44].

Minc v. Québec (Procureur général), [2004] R.J.Q. 1475, refd to. [para. 134].

Conférence des juges du Québec v. Québec (Procureur général), [2000] R.J.Q. 744, refd to. [para. 140].

Conférence des juges du Québec v. Québec (Procureur général), [2000] R.J.Q. 2803, refd to. [para. 140].

Counsel:

Susan Dawes and Robb Tonn, for the appellants the Provincial Court Judges' Association of New Brunswick, the Honourable Judge Michael McKee and the Honourable Judge Steven Hutchinson;

Gaétan Migneault and Nancy Forbes, for the respondent Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of New Brunswick, as represented by the Minister of Justice;

C. Michael Mitchell and Steven M. Barrett, for the appellants the Ontario Judges' Association, the Ontario Family Law Judges' Association and the Ontario Provincial Court (Civil Division) Judges' Association;

Lori R. Sterling, Sean Hanley and Arif Virani, for the respondent Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of Ontario, as represented by the Chair of Management Board;

Phyllis A. Smith, Q.C., Kurt Sandstrom and Scott Chen, for the appellants Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Alberta and the Lieutenant Governor in Council;

Alan D. Hunter, Q.C., and S.L. Martin, Q.C., for the respondents Chereda Bodner et al.;

Claude-Armand Sheppard, Annick Bergeron and Brigitte Bussières, for the appellant/respondent/intervener the Attorney General of Quebec and the appellant the Minister of Justice of Quebec;

Raynold Langlois, Q.C., and Chantal Chatelain, for the respondent/intervener Conférence des juges du Québec, the respondents Maurice Abud et al., and the intervener the Canadian Association of Provincial Court Judges;

William J. Atkinson and Michel Gagné, for the respondents Morton S. Minc et al.;

André Gauthier and Raymond Nepveu, for the appellant Conférence des juges municipaux du Québec;

Robert J. Frater and Anne M. Turley, for the intervener the Attorney General of Canada;

Janet Minor, Sean Hanley and Arif Virani, for the intervener the Attorney General of Ontario;

Gaétan Migneault, for the intervener the Attorney General of New Brunswick;

George H. Copley, Q.C., and Jennifer Button, for the intervener the Attorney General of British Columbia;

Graeme G. Mitchell, Q.C., for the intervener the Attorney General for Saskatchewan;

Kurt Sandstrom, for the intervener the Attorney General of Alberta;

F. William Johnson, Q.C., for the intervener the Canadian Bar Association;

Louis Masson, Michel Paradis and Valerie Jordi, for the intervener the Federation of Law Societies of Canada;

Pierre Bienvenu, for the intervener the Canadian Superior Court Judges Association;

Steven M. Barrett and C. Michael Mitchell, for the intervener the Ontario Conference of Judges;

Paul B. Schabas and Catherine Beagan Flood, for the intervener the Association of Justices of the Peace of Ontario;

Written submissions only by W.S. Berardino, Q.C., for the intervener the Judicial Justice of the Peace Association of British Columbia.

Solicitors of Record:

Myers Weinberg, Winnipeg, Manitoba, for the appellants the Provincial Court Judges' Association of New Brunswick, the Honourable Judge Michael McKee and the Honourable Judge Steven Hutchinson;

Attorney General of New Brunswick, Fredericton, New Brunswick, for the respondent Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of New Brunswick, as represented by the Minister of Justice;

Sack Goldblatt Mitchell, Toronto, Ontario, for the appellants the Ontario Judges' Association, the Ontario Family Law Judges' Association and the Ontario Provincial Court (Civil Division) Judges' Association;

Attorney General of Ontario, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondent Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of Ontario, as represented by the Chair of Management Board;

Emery Jamieson, Edmonton, Alberta, for the appellants Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Alberta and the Lieutenant Governor in Council;

Code Hunter, Calgary, Alberta, for the respondents Chereda Bodner et al.;

Robinson Sheppard Shapiro, Montreal, Quebec, for the appellant/respondent/intervener the Attorney General of Quebec and the appellant the Minister of Justice of Quebec;

Langlois Kronström Desjardins, Montreal, Quebec, for the respondent/intervener Conférence des juges du Québec, the respondents Maurice Abud et al., and the intervener the Canadian Association of Provincial Court Judges;

McCarthy Tétrault, Montreal, Quebec, for the respondents Morton S. Minc et al.;

Cain Lamarre Casgrain Wells, Montreal, Quebec, for the appellant Conférence des juges municipaux du Québec;

Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the intervener the Attorney General of Canada;

Attorney General of Ontario, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervener the Attorney General of Ontario;

Attorney General of New Brunswick, Fredericton, New Brunswick, for the intervener the Attorney General of New Brunswick;

Attorney General of British Columbia, Victoria, British Columbia, for the intervener the Attorney General of British Columbia;

Attorney General for Saskatchewan, Regina, Saskatchewan, for the intervener the Attorney General for Saskatchewan;

Attorney General of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, for the intervener the Attorney General of Alberta;

Gerrand Rath Johnson, Regina, Saskatchewan, for the intervener the Canadian Bar Association;

Joli-Coeur, Lacasse, Geoffrion, Jetté, Saint-Pierre, Sillery, Quebec, for the intervener the Federation of Law Societies of Canada;

Ogilvy Renault, Montreal, Quebec, for the intervener the Canadian Superior Court Judges Association;

Sack Goldblatt Mitchell, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervener the Ontario Conference of Judges;

Blake Cassels & Graydon, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervener the Association of Justices of the Peace of Ontario;

Berardino & Harris, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the intervener the Judicial Justice of the Peace Association of British Columbia.

These appeals were heard on November 9, 2004, before McLachlin, C.J.C., Major, Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella and Charron, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. The following reasons for judgment were delivered in both official languages by the court on July 22, 2005.

To continue reading

Request your trial
88 practice notes
  • R. v. Raponi (W.), 2006 ABQB 593
    • Canada
    • Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
    • June 23, 2006
    ...refd to. [para. 170, footnote 112]. New Brunswick Provincial Court Judges' Association et al. v. New Brunswick (Minister of Justice), [2005] 2 S.C.R. 286; 336 N.R. 201 ; 367 A.R. 300 ; 346 W.A.C. 300 ; 288 N.B.R.(2d) 202 ; 751 A.P.R. 202 ; 201 O.A.C. 293 ; 255 D.L.R.(4th) 513 ; 14 C......
  • British Columbia (Attorney General) v. Provincial Court Judges’ Association of British Columbia, 2020 SCC 20
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court (Canada)
    • July 31, 2020
    ...response to the commission’s recommendations is subject to a limited form of judicial review as described in Bodner v. Alberta, 2005 SCC 44, [2005] 2 S.C.R. 286. Bodner review is the mechanism for ensuring that the government respects the commission process and for safeguarding the public c......
  • British Columbia v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd. et al., (2005) 339 N.R. 129 (SCC)
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Supreme Court (Canada)
    • June 8, 2005
    ...50; 2002 SCC 57, refd to. [para. 45]. New Brunswick Provincial Court Judges' Association et al. v. New Brunswick (Minister of Justice) (2005), 336 N.R. 201; 367 A.R. 300; 346 W.A.C. 300; 201 O.A.C. 293; 2005 SCC 44, refd to. [para. R. v. Salituro, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 654; 131 N.R. 161; 50 O.A.C......
  • Charkaoui, Re, (2007) 358 N.R. 1 (SCC)
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Supreme Court (Canada)
    • February 23, 2007
    ...186 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 45]. New Brunswick Provincial Court Judges' Association et al. v. New Brunswick (Minister of Justice), [2005] 2 S.C.R. 286; 336 N.R. 201; 367 A.R. 300; 346 W.A.C. 300; 288 N.B.R.(2d) 202; 751 A.P.R. 202; 201 O.A.C. 293; 2005 SCC 44, refd to. [para. Dr. Bonham's C......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
78 cases
  • R. v. Raponi (W.), 2006 ABQB 593
    • Canada
    • Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
    • June 23, 2006
    ...refd to. [para. 170, footnote 112]. New Brunswick Provincial Court Judges' Association et al. v. New Brunswick (Minister of Justice), [2005] 2 S.C.R. 286; 336 N.R. 201 ; 367 A.R. 300 ; 346 W.A.C. 300 ; 288 N.B.R.(2d) 202 ; 751 A.P.R. 202 ; 201 O.A.C. 293 ; 255 D.L.R.(4th) 513 ; 14 C......
  • British Columbia (Attorney General) v. Provincial Court Judges’ Association of British Columbia, 2020 SCC 20
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court (Canada)
    • July 31, 2020
    ...response to the commission’s recommendations is subject to a limited form of judicial review as described in Bodner v. Alberta, 2005 SCC 44, [2005] 2 S.C.R. 286. Bodner review is the mechanism for ensuring that the government respects the commission process and for safeguarding the public c......
  • British Columbia v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd. et al., (2005) 339 N.R. 129 (SCC)
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Supreme Court (Canada)
    • June 8, 2005
    ...50; 2002 SCC 57, refd to. [para. 45]. New Brunswick Provincial Court Judges' Association et al. v. New Brunswick (Minister of Justice) (2005), 336 N.R. 201; 367 A.R. 300; 346 W.A.C. 300; 201 O.A.C. 293; 2005 SCC 44, refd to. [para. R. v. Salituro, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 654; 131 N.R. 161; 50 O.A.C......
  • Charkaoui, Re, (2007) 358 N.R. 1 (SCC)
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Supreme Court (Canada)
    • February 23, 2007
    ...186 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 45]. New Brunswick Provincial Court Judges' Association et al. v. New Brunswick (Minister of Justice), [2005] 2 S.C.R. 286; 336 N.R. 201; 367 A.R. 300; 346 W.A.C. 300; 288 N.B.R.(2d) 202; 751 A.P.R. 202; 201 O.A.C. 293; 2005 SCC 44, refd to. [para. Dr. Bonham's C......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
9 books & journal articles
  • Table of Cases
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Constitutional Law. Fifth Edition Conclusion
    • August 3, 2017
    ...279 Provincial Court Judges’ Association (New Brunswick) v. New Brunswick (Minister of Justice), [2005] 2 S.C.R. 286, 255 D.L.R. (4th) 513, 2005 SCC 44 ................................................................................................ 150 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 628 Public School B......
  • Special Classes of Government Employment
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Ontario Public Service Employment and Labour Law
    • June 15, 2005
    ...Court Judges’ Assn. of New Brunswick v. New Brunswick (Minister of Justice), Ontario Judges’ Association v. Ontario (Management Board), 2005 SCC 44, [New Brunswick Provincial Court Judges]. 91 Constitution Act, 1982, s. 11 (d). 92 P.E.I. Reference, above note 90; Ocean Port Hotel Ltd. v. Br......
  • The Constitution Act, 1867: Federalism and Judicial Power
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Constitutional Law. Fifth Edition The Framework and Institutions of Government
    • August 3, 2017
    ...Ontario v. Ontario , 2011 ONCA 243. 162 Provincial Court Judges’ Association (New Brunswick) v. New Brunswick (Minister of Justice) , [2005] 2 S.C.R. 286. The Constitution Act, 1867 : Federalism and Judicial Power 151 rights and freedoms of our citizens.” 163 One example of how such access ......
  • Table of Cases
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Ontario Public Service Employment and Labour Law
    • June 15, 2005
    ...Court Judges’ Assn. of New Brunswick v. New Brunswick (Minister of Justice), Ontario Judges’ Association v. Ontario (Management Board), 2005 SCC 44 254 Public Service Alliance of Canada v. Canada, [2000] F.C.J. No. 754 (T.D.)............................... 20 Pulford v. he Crown in Right of......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT