Listen to this article
Estimated 3 minutes
The audio version of this article is generated by text-to-speech, a technology based on artificial intelligence.
A group representing federally appointed judges is taking the government to court over its decision to reject a recommended pay raise.
Earlier this summer, an independent body called on Ottawa to boost salaries for federally appointed judges by $28,000 to $36,000 a year above their existing annual increases, saying the raise is required to ensure that top private-sector lawyers keep applying for judicial appointments.
The government rejected that recommendation last month, citing “a significant deterioration in the Canadian financial outlook.”
While its conclusions are not binding, the Judicial Compensation and Benefits Commission is the central player in an independent process that sets the salaries of judges who sit on superior courts, the Federal Court and the Supreme Court of Canada, among others.
On Wednesday, the Canadian Superior Courts Judges Association (CSCJA) filed for a judicial review of the government’s decision, arguing that Ottawa failed to meaningfully engage with the commission’s recommendation.
The group represents about 1,400 judges across Canada.
“The government is not required to accept commission recommendations. If it chooses to depart from them, it has a duty to provide legitimate reasons, based on facts and sound reasoning, and the commission’s recommendations should have a meaningful effect,” Jean-Michel Boudreau, CSCJA’s lawyer, said in a statement.
“The government’s response does not meet that standard. It does not address the commission’s analysis, it is silent on the comprehensive new evidence showing the widening gap between judicial salaries and private sector earnings and it relies on facts and economic arguments the government did not put before the commission.”
In its decision, the government noted that judges already receive yearly salary increases using the Industrial Aggregate Index.
“Judicial salaries are adequate and, in any event, cannot be the source of new fiscal expenditure at a time of comprehensive expenditure review, including possible public sector job losses,” the government wrote.
But the commission argued yearly judicial salary increases aren’t enough.
It concluded the base salary of most federal judges should rise on top of annual increases from $396,700 to $424,700, with the salaries of most chief justices rising from $435,000 to $465,700.
The government also disagreed with the commission’s finding that judicial salaries present serious challenges in attracting qualified private sector candidates to the bench.
It said the commission failed to consider other explanations for the increased number of vacancies, including the 2021 federal election. It also noted that judicial vacancies fell below historic averages by the start of 2025.
A Justice Department spokesperson said the government had received CSCJA’s court application and would be reviewing the case.
“It would be inappropriate to comment further at this time,” the spokesperson said in an email.
Patrick Taillon, a law professor at Université Laval in Quebec City, said the case will “put justice to the test.”
“The judges who will rule on the matter are personally affected, since it is their remuneration that is at stake,” he said in French.
The government’s decision was released just a day before the federal budget was tabled, which projected a deficit of $78 billion for 2025-26 fiscal year.
The government cited the impact of U.S. tariffs and the need to meet Canada’s NATO defence spending commitment in its decision to reject the raise recommendation.
