Military Judges Compensation Committee

[dapaterson]

The MJCC have released their report, recommending a 15% pay increase for the four military judges.

Report of the Military Judges Compensation Committee - Canada.ca

www.canada.ca

 

[PPCLI Guy]

The MJCC have released their report, recommending a 15% pay increase for the four military judges.

Report of the Military Judges Compensation Committee - Canada.ca

www.canada.ca

Hmm. Those four judges made submissions on their own behalf.....presumably the time spent on that work was not "judgy stuff".

It would be interesting to see the results if soldiers could also make submissions on their own behalf in response to the governments' position, and then have it adjudicated by an independent panel.

At least it is better than MPs voting on their own increases.....

 

[SupersonicMax]

Talk about cherry picking what is a factor and what is not to justify a salary increase…. Picking 2020 as the year to pick the number of days sitting/decisions rendered by Federally Appointed Judges to prove they also don’t do too much work is dishonest….

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

I would have thought their salary would basically be the same as the Federal court judges' one - automatically. If it is sufficient for Federal court judges to be considered independent, then it should be good enough to ensure the independence of military judges.

 

[FJAG]

Hmm. Those four judges made submissions on their own behalf.....presumably the time spent on that work was not "judgy stuff".

It would be interesting to see the results if soldiers could also make submissions on their own behalf in response to the governments' position, and then have it adjudicated by an independent panel.

At least it is better than MPs voting on their own increases.....

The whole MJCC system was set up at the time of the Supreme Court challenges to the military judges' impartiality. There was (and remains) case law that states that judicial impartiality has three components: 1) security of tenure; 2) financial security (i.e. pay and benefits must be established by law and not arbitrarily controlled by the executive); and 3) independence of the administration of the judicial functions.

The MJCC was set up to create a process independent of the executive to determine the appropriate remuneration of military judges as per the law. In a way it's set up as an arbitration panel as between the MND and the judges where the MND and judges each get to select one panel member and the two appointed panel members select a chairman.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

Uhuh.

Lawyers be lawyering.

Whatabout a soldiers impartiality? Is that just a given? You know....that whole unlimited liability thing.

Any Mil Judges subject to that?

Maybe soldiers should be protected by " 1) security of tenure; 2) financial security (i.e. pay and benefits must be established by law and not arbitrarily controlled by the executive); and 3) independence of the administration of the military functions."

 

[dapaterson]

Talk about cherry picking what is a factor and what is not to justify a salary increase…. Picking 2020 as the year to pick the number of days sitting/decisions rendered by Federally Appointed Judges to prove they also don’t do too much work is dishonest….

The MJCC mandate is time bound. Their role was to examine 2019-2023. Ideally, their recommendations would have been in advance (something they note in the submission).

I was surprised that they didn't mention the lack of a chief military judge - it's been filled by an Acting judge for years. That plus the delays in appointment of the committee are suggestive of a GiC process that's not working optimally.

 

[dapaterson]

Maybe soldiers should be protected by " 1) security of tenure; 2) financial security (i.e. pay and benefits must be established by law and not arbitrarily controlled by the executive); and 3) independence of the administration of the military functions."

I'd argue that we have shifted from arbitrary termination of tenure for CAF members to excessive security of tenure; the standard required to terminate a CAF member from the organization is elevated. Madame Arbour advocates for easier termination of early enrolment personnel in her report.

 

[FJAG]

Uhuh.

Lawyers be lawyering.

Whatabout a soldiers impartiality? Is that just a given?

I always thought that "beyond a reasonable doubt" covered that.

You know....that whole unlimited liability thing.

Any Mil Judges subject to that?

Yes, but that's within the judicial chain of command. Impartiality requires being separate of the standard military chain of command. It's a bit of an apples and oranges thing.

Maybe soldiers should be protected by " 1) security of tenure; 2) financial security (i.e. pay and benefits must be established by law and not arbitrarily controlled by the executive); and 3) independence of the administration of the military functions."

That's a tough one. In a lot of ways, all of those are in fact in existence by way of various laws, regulations and policies. In effect a covenant between the people of Canada, its government and individual soldiers exists but is so disjointed that most people have troubles understanding and accessing the system. The problem is where the rubber meets the road. Are these policies sufficient and are they arbitrarily instituted and administered by the government?

I'm a great believer in the need for a proper social covenant between the people of the country and its forces, both as an entity and as individuals. I've previously spoken as to such a covenant for reservists as between the government, the soldier, the soldier's family and his civilian employer. I don't believe that you can have a properly functioning reserve force without such a policy with clearly defined terms.

IMHO that goes to the forces as a whole as well. It's a constitutional issue IMHO that arises from s 91 of the Constitution Act 1867 which states:

the exclusive Legislative Authority of the Parliament of Canada extends to all Matters coming within the Classes of Subjects next hereinafter enumerated; that is to say, ...
7. Militia, Military and Naval Service, and Defence.

By giving the federal legislature exclusive jurisdiction in these areas it not only empowers the feds with the right to act but, IMHO, it also imposes a moral, if not a legal, obligation to act on behalf of all Canadian citizens', service members' and veterans' best interests. Obviously the Feds prefer to see the powers as permissive rather than obligatory.

I think that most people believe that such an obligatory covenant does exist. The problem is in defining its extent.

 

[FJAG]

...
I was surprised that they didn't mention the lack of a chief military judge - it's been filled by an Acting judge for years. That plus the delays in appointment of the committee are suggestive of a GiC process that's not working optimally.

When you consider that Trudeau's government has just filed an appeal re their failure to fill 75 (now 68) federal judge positions across the country, one can consider the failure to appoint a Chief Military Judge small beer. Remember, I'm the guy that argues that the CAF has far too many judges, prosecutors and defence counsel for the small volume of work it does and the stupid processes it has which greatly complicate the work required. It's one oof the hallmarks of the self-licking ice-cream cone that exists in Ottawa.

I'd argue that we have shifted from arbitrary termination of tenure for CAF members to excessive security of tenure; the standard required to terminate a CAF member from the organization is elevated. Madame Arbour advocates for easier termination of early enrolment personnel in her report.

Whole heartedly agree.

 

[dapaterson]

I am appalled that @FJAG failed to use the phrase "privity of contract" when discussing the relationship between the Government and the members of the CAF.