1 total
Challenge to the federal judicial appointments system due to alleged political interference dismissed.
The applicants, Democracy Watch and Duff Conacher, challenged the constitutionality of the federal judicial appointments and elevations processes.
They argued that the system's structure, in which the Minister of Justice has significant control over Judicial Advisory Committees and frequently consults with political actors before making recommendations to Cabinet, undermined judicial independence and impartiality.
The Court found that portions of the applicants' evidence—primarily media reports and opinions—were inadmissible hearsay or improper opinion evidence.
While recognizing the applicants met the test for public interest standing and invoking the doctrine of necessity to permit a Federal Court judge to hear the case, the Court ultimately dismissed the application.
Applying the framework established in Valente v. The Queen, the Court concluded that the required objective conditions of judicial independence apply post-appointment.
The Constitution itself vests the appointment power in Cabinet, a political body, meaning political involvement in appointments does not inherently render the process unconstitutional.
