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?
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@postmedia.com
Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark nationalpost.com and sign up for our politics newsletter, First Reading, here.