The BC Supreme Court has quashed the government’s decision to reject the Judicial Compensation Commission’s recommended salary adjustment for Provincial Court judges.
Chief Justice Hinkson’s decision published yesterday notes the long-recognized “constitutional imperative” in Canada of “depoliticizing the means by which the executive and legislative branches of government address the matter of compensation of the judicial branch” (para. 7).
In British Columbia, the Judicial Compensation Act sets the process for determining the salaries of Provincial Court judges. That process requires an independent body, the Judicial Compensation Commission, to prepare recommendations for consideration by the Legislative Assembly.
The Commission’s 2016 report observed that BC Provincial Court judges’ salaries rank 11th among Canada’s provinces and territories. The Commission recommended an adjustment over three years that would “put British Columbia Provincial Court judges in 4th place compared to other Provincial Court judges, which is appropriate given British Columbia’s financial position, economic conditions, population size and budget”.
The Legislative Assembly rejected this recommendation and substituted its own salary figures. Chief Justice Hinkson quashed that decision, concluding that it failed to conform to the standard set out in the Judicial Compensation Act.
The Court found the Legislative Assembly’s decision was based in part on “erroneous representations” by the Opposition Justice Critic which were not corrected by the Attorney General, stating:
[64] … I am unable to conclude that the comments, uncorrected, did not introduce a failure to recognize the importance of the judicial office and judicial independence into the vote of the Legislative Assembly.
This is now the fourth successful judicial review that the Provincial Court Judges Association of BC has brought against the government for its now “almost routine” rejection of JCC recommendations. .
Joseph J. Arvay QC acted for the Provincial Court Judges’ Association of British Columbia in this case Reasons for the decision are indexed at 2020 BCSC 1264.