Alan D. Hunter

The Supreme Court of Canada heard multiple appeals from New Brunswick, Ontario, Alberta, and Quebec regarding the constitutional requirement for independent judicial compensation commissions.

The Court clarified the principles from the Provincial Judges Reference, establishing a three-stage analysis for determining whether a government's response to a commission's recommendations meets the standard of rationality.

The Court upheld the government responses in New Brunswick and Ontario, found the Alberta government's response partially irrational but globally effective, and struck down the Quebec government's response for failing to address the committee's core recommendations.

The respondents, who were non-sitting justices of the peace, challenged the constitutionality of legislative amendments that required all justices of the peace exercising judicial functions to meet new qualifications set by an independent Judicial Council.

The respondents did not meet these qualifications and were removed from office, though offered administrative positions.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that while the principle of judicial independence applied to their office, the legislative removal did not violate their security of tenure.

The reforms were a good faith effort to improve the qualifications and independence of the office, and thus the removal was not arbitrary.

The respondent challenged the constitutionality of third-party spending limits in the Canada Elections Act and obtained an interlocutory injunction restraining their enforcement during a federal election.

The Attorney General of Canada applied to the Supreme Court of Canada for a stay of the injunction.

The Court granted the stay, holding that the balance of convenience favours maintaining duly enacted legislation pending a complete constitutional review, as it must be assumed to serve a valid public purpose.