Flex Legal Network
  • How We Help
    • Our Services >
      • Examples of Projects
    • Our Fees
    • Our Story & Our Founder
  • Who We Help
  • FAQs
  • Our Team
  • Hire Us
  • Join Us
  • Blog
    • Articles & Publications
    • Speaking Engagements & Presentations

"Two New Supreme Court of Canada Cases Examine Judicial Independence, Cabinet Confidentiality, and More" by Ainslie Pierrynowski

9/1/2020

0 Comments

 
Picture
Two recent Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) decisions offer a new look into the relationship between the courts and the other branches of government. While these decisions dealt with judges’ salaries, they offer several interesting takeaways for the legal community as a whole.

Background and Procedural History

This summer, the SCC released two companion decisions about judges’ compensation: British Columbia (Attorney General) v Provincial Court Judges’ Association of British Columbia[1] and Nova Scotia (Attorney General) v Judges of the Provincial Court and Family Court of Nova Scotia.[2]To determine judges’ salaries, independent commissions make recommendations to governments. If a government chooses not to follow these recommendations, the government must explain why. To make sure that the government has fulfilled its constitutional duties, the courts can review the government’s decision through a process established in the SCC case Bodner v Alberta.[3]  Bodner set out three criteria that governments need to meet:
  • The government must express a legitimate reason for its decision
  • This reason must have a factual basis
  • The independent commission process must be respected and its purposes (safeguarding judicial independence and depoliticizing judicial compensation) must be achieved.[4]          
In the newest SCC cases, the governments of British Columbia and Nova Scotia decided not to follow the commissions’ recommendations. In each province, an organization representing the judges requested a judicial review of their government’s decision. The organizations asked the governments to disclose confidential Cabinet documents as part of the review. The lower courts in each province determined that the governments must disclose these documents.
 
Summary of Decision

The issue in these cases was whether the governments were required to disclose confidential Cabinet documents for the Bodner reviews. The SCC unanimously decided that the government of British Columbia did not need to disclose the document, but the government of Nova Scotia needed to disclose part of the document.

Justice Karakatsanis (writing for the Court in both cases) explained that it was not enough for a confidential Cabinet document to be relevant to the Bodner criteria. If this were the case, courts would routinely review Cabinet documents. As a result, in Justice Karakatsanis’s words, “Although any inspection of a confidential Cabinet document undermines Cabinet confidentiality to some extent, judicial inspection of a document that concerns Cabinet deliberations about the judiciary would undermine it more significantly.”[5]

The party requesting the Cabinet document needs to show that there is a reason to believe that the document might contain evidence showing that the government did not fulfill its constitutional obligations. Even if the document indicates that the government failed to complete its duties, the court can still decide that the document should not be produced for other reasons. For instance, it may be in the public interest for the document to remain confidential.[6]

In Provincial Court Judges’ Association of British Columbia, the SCC found that the document should not be disclosed because there was no basis to believe that the document may provide evidence that the government did not meet its constitutional obligations. Conversely, in Judges of the Provincial Court and Family Court of Nova Scotia, the SCC determined that part of the document should be disclosed. As Justice Karakatsanis wrote, “The exclusion of this evidence from the record would undermine the reviewing court’s ability to deal with central issues on Bodner review…The interests of the administration of justice thus strongly favour the disclosure of these parts of the Attorney General’s report [the Cabinet document].”[7] 
 
Lessons Learned

While both cases focused on judicial compensation, these decisions do not only have implications for judges. The cases offer two main take-aways for the broader legal community.

​First, for lawyers who interact with government actors, these decisions are a reminder that while Cabinet confidentiality is not absolute, exceptions to this convention tend to have high thresholds. Justice Karakatsanis’s emphasis on limiting exceptions to Cabinet confidentiality recalls the earlier SCC decision Babcock v Canada (Attorney General).[8] Babcock established that section 39 of the Canada Evidence Act, which protects certain Cabinet documents from disclosure, was constitutional.[9] According to Chief Justice McLachlin (as she then was), writing for the court, “Those charged with the heavy responsibility of making government decisions must be free to discuss all aspects of the problems that come before them and to express all manner of views, without fear that what they read, say or act on will later be subject to public scrutiny… The process of democratic governance works best when Cabinet members charged with government policy and decision-making are free to express themselves around the Cabinet table unreservedly.”[10] 

Second, these cases affirm the importance of judicial independence. While judicial independence is rooted in the Constitution Act, 1867,[11] over time case law has helped to establish what judicial independence means in practice. Provincial Court Judges’ Association of British Columbia and Judges of the Provincial Court and Family Court of Nova Scotia strike a nuanced balance between the need for government transparency and the importance of Cabinet confidentiality, as expressed in Babcock. In the words of Justice Karakatsanis, “Bodner review generally opposes two branches of the state: the members of the judiciary challenging the government’s response and the attorney general defending it…the interests of the three branches may, whether directly or indirectly, be at stake.”[12]

Overall, both of these recent decisions offer new insight into how the judiciary interacts with the other branches of government. The implications of these cases extend beyond judges’ salaries, into fundamental questions of democracy, independence, and transparency.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
This was a guest post written by Ainslie Pierrynowksi, a Second Year JD Candidate at the University of Toronto, Faculty of Law.

Flex Legal is happy to provide an opportunity to law school students seeking publishing opportunities. Have a topic in mind that might be of interest to our lawyer readers? Case comment? New legislation? Reach out and let us know: info@flexlegalnetwork.com


[1] 2020 SCC 20 [Provincial Court Judges’ Association of British Columbia].

[2] 2020 SCC 21 [Judges of the Provincial Court and Family Court of Nova Scotia].

[3] 2005 SCC 44.

[4] Ibid at para 31.

[5] Provincial Court Judges’ Association of British Columbia, supra note 1 at para 72.

[6] Provincial Court Judges’ Association of British Columbia, supra note 1 at para 87.

[7] Judges of the Provincial Court and Family Court of Nova Scotia, supra note 2 at para 72.

[8] 2002 SCC 57 [Babcock].

[9] See Canada Evidence Act, RSC 1985, c C-5, s 39.

[10] Babcock, supra note 9 at para 18.

[11] Constitution Act, 1867 (UK), 30 & 31 Vict, c 3, reprinted in RSC 1985, App II, No 5, ss ss 96 and 100. See also Reference re Remuneration of Judges of the Provincial Court (PEI), (1997) 3 SCR 3 at para 2.

[12] Provincial Court Judges’ Association of British Columbia, supra note 2 at para 71. 

0 Comments



Leave a Reply.

    Are you a busy lawyer looking for experienced help?
    HELP IS HERE

    Categories

    All
    Blog Series: Starting Your Own Firm
    Book Reviews
    Case Comments
    COVID 19
    Ethics Of Freelance Lawyering
    Flex In Print (News/Publications)
    Flex News
    Freelance Lawyering
    Law (General)
    Law Society
    Legal Innovation
    Networking
    Networking Events
    Personal Management
    Wellbeing

    Archives

    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015

    RSS Feed

      Sign up for our newsletter & have these articles sent directly to you:

    Subscribe
HIRE A FREELANCER: START HERE
Picture
FLEX FREELANCERS' MEMBERS ONLY PAGE
CONTACT:
info@flexlegalnetwork.com
416.509.3655  (Erin's Direct Line)
3080 Yonge Street, Suite 6060
Toronto, ON
​M4N 3N1  (by appointment only)
​Flex                           Services                   Hire Us       FAQs
Flex Clients           Our Lawyers           Join Us       
Fees / Pricing          Blog                          Founder: Erin Cowling  
Resources & Publications 
​Disclaimer/Terms & Conditions

DISCLAIMER

Flex Legal Network Inc. ("Flex Legal") is not a law firm and does not perform legal services. Flex Legal is a company that matches freelance lawyers/law clerk members of our network with law firm/lawyers in need of freelance lawyer/clerk services.  Flex Legal's network of freelance lawyers practice independently and not in an association or other relationship for the joint practice of law. When a law firm/lawyer engages the services of a Flex Legal freelance lawyer the contractual relationship is solely between the freelance lawyer and law firm/lawyer. Flex Legal does not review the legal work provided by the freelance lawyers/clerks with the network.  Each lawyer is solely responsible for her or his own work product and general business activities to the exclusion of any other lawyer and Flex Legal. The information provided in this website should not be construed as legal advice. Transmission of information from this website is not intended to create, and its receipt does not constitute a solicitor-client relationship with Flex Legal or any of its individual network lawyers or personnel. Use of Flex Legal services does not establish a solicitor-client relationship. Flex Legal will protect the confidentiality of information, but information you provide to Flex Legal may not be afforded legal protection as solicitor-client communications. Flex Legal expressly disclaims all liability in respect to actions taken or not taken based on any or all of the contents of this website. See also our Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.


​OUR COMMITMENT TO ANTI-RACISM

We are committed to anti-racism and know we are not doing enough. Right now our activism is donation-based and we are listening and learning, and amplifying BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, People of Colour) voices. We know we must take sustained, intentional action to combat racism. One step we are taking is assessing our annual budget and developing a plan to support BIPOC owned businesses, vendors, and contractors. Acknowledging the lack of BIPOC representation on our team, we are committed to improving this lack of diversity. We want to continually and sustainably do the work to build an anti-racist business and community where everyone feels safe and valued. If you would like to contact us about our anti-racism commitment or how we can improve our allyship, please reach out: info@flexlegalnetwork.com . For law firms looking for ways to support the BIPOC community see this article by Lulu Tinarwu for the CBA National Magazine.
(C) 2015-2021  - Flex Legal Network Inc. - All rights reserved.
"Flex Legal Network", "Flex Legal", & "Flex" are all registered trademarks of Flex Legal Network Inc.

  • How We Help
    • Our Services >
      • Examples of Projects
    • Our Fees
    • Our Story & Our Founder
  • Who We Help
  • FAQs
  • Our Team
  • Hire Us
  • Join Us
  • Blog
    • Articles & Publications
    • Speaking Engagements & Presentations