A group representing 1,400 federally appointed judges has filed a federal lawsuit against the Government of Canada. The Canadian Superior Courts Judges Association claims the government failed to properly consider an independent commission's analysis when it rejected recommendations to increase judicial salaries last November.

The association, which includes both sitting and retired judges from superior and appellate courts nationwide, argues that the government ignored new evidence regarding the salaries of private practice lawyers. This evidence was crucial to the commission's recommendation for higher judicial salaries, which the association believes are necessary to attract qualified candidates to the bench.

The lawsuit states, "While a decision to depart from a commission’s recommendation is owed deference, this is only the case if that decision is adequately justified and demonstrates a genuine engagement with the commission process. That is not the case here." The judges contend that the government's response to the commission's salary increase recommendation undermines the integrity of the commission process itself.

In July, the commission released its latest report, suggesting an increase of $28,000 in judicial salaries, in addition to annual adjustments based on Statistics Canada’s Industrial Aggregate Index. The report also recommended raising associate judges' salaries from 80 percent to 95 percent of a puisne judge’s salary.

The commission has only recommended a salary increase beyond the annual statutory adjustment once in the past 20 years. However, on November 3, the federal government rejected these recommendations, arguing that the current state of judicial salaries did not hinder the recruitment of talent from private practice. The government cited factors such as slowed economic growth, increased military pay, and potential public sector job losses as reasons for its decision.

The day after the rejection, the government released its first budget under Prime Minister Mark Carney, which included $81.8 billion allocated to the military over five years and plans to reduce the public service workforce.

The judges' association contends that the reasons provided by the government for rejecting the commission's recommendations are not valid. They argue that the government's response does not reflect meaningful engagement with the commission process or respect for its constitutional objectives.

Historically, past commissions reviewing judicial salaries had limited access to data on private sector salaries, relying only on income reported by unincorporated, self-employed lawyers. Many lawyers, however, earn income through professional legal corporations. Between 2022 and 2024, the government and judiciary worked together to obtain more comprehensive data on these lawyers. The association claims this new data revealed that previous commissions had significantly underestimated private practice lawyers' incomes, leading to an inaccurate assessment of judicial salary adequacy.

The association asserts that the government did not address the significant gap between judicial salaries and private sector salaries highlighted by the new data. They also challenge the government's argument that economic conditions justified the rejection of salary increases, stating that the government relied on economic downturns that occurred after the commission's recommendations were made.

Furthermore, the association argues that the government’s belief that statutory indexing alone ensures adequate judicial salaries undermines the commission process. They claim this belief would render the commission's role redundant and diminish the meaningful impact of its recommendations as required by the Constitution.

The association is asking the court to set aside the government's November response, arguing that allowing it to stand would suggest that governments can treat the constitutionally mandated commission process as a mere formality, which could threaten judicial independence. A spokesperson for the association declined to comment, and the Attorney General of Canada’s office did not respond to a request for comment.