B. C. judges’ salaries ‘ far too rich’ for middle management

Rein in wages: An appointment to the provincial bench one of the best paying legal gigs around

Victoria wasted little time kicking rhetorical sand in the face of provincial judges after the B. C. Supreme Court decided they were not immune to economic restraint.

With the judges still smarting over the March 3 ruling that OK’d 2010 austerity measures eliminating their wage increases, Justice Minister Suzanne Anton moved to cut this year’s proposed hikes.

Her tight- fisted stance underscored what has in the last half- decade become a thorny divide between the two institutions — the government and the judiciary.

“The recommended salary increase effective April 1, 2014 of five per cent is rejected,” she told the legislature Wednesday, speaking to the motion on the report of the Judicial Justices Compensation Commission tabled Feb. 18.

“The salary increase effective April 1, 2014 is set at 1.5 per cent.”

She says the commission’s recommendations are unfair or unreasonable and a vote is set for March 24. Anton should be supported. An appointment to the provincial bench has become one of the best paying legal gigs around and that’s why politicians and judges are so heatedly arguing over the remuneration and benefits. It’s getting too rich. Judge John Savage said earlier this month in a 65- page decision that Victoria was justified in balking at the 2010 salary hikes for the 155- member bench.

The problem is the JCC, with its changing, unelected membership, isn’t really accountable and when no one can embarrass you for a bad call, well ...

Provincial court judges’ salaries have risen to $ 234,600 in 2013 from $ 161,250 in 2004, a cumulative increase of 45 per cent over the past decade! You receive that? Me either. Regardless, the Liberals have been trying to restrain judges’ salaries since 2010 on the grounds they need to share the pain.

“The theme here is one of temporary austerity in which members of the judiciary share some of the burdens of an adverse economic climate during the years in question, after

Provincial court judges’ salaries have risen to $ 234,600 in 2013 from $ 161,250 in 2004, a cumulative increase of 45 per cent over the past decade!

receiving significant increases in prior years,” Savage wrote of the 2010 government response to the JCC’s recommendations.

“The constitutional guarantee of a minimum acceptable level of judicial remuneration does not shield judges from sharing the burden of difficult economic times, to limit increases.”

The judges haven’t responded to the ruling yet and may appeal it. But why? They argue that this is a major institutional battle: the constitutional standing of the courts, how Parliament regulates salaries for an independent judiciary — these issues are at stake.

The spectre must never arise of judges being manipulated by financial means for political ends, they say.

But can’t you hear Twilight Zone theme music playing? Don’t we all agree with their concerns?

Judges should make their decisions based on the law not on politically prompted bias or on who is paying their salary. Isn’t that why we’ve adopted a system whereby an independent agency makes a determination before the politicians weigh in? ( The five- person Judicial Justices Compensation Commission has two people appointed by the Attorney General, two by the chief judge and one — the chair — appointed by those four.)

Since 2010, the judges have had no wage increase and only a modest 1.5 per cent in this fiscal year. I won’t comment on that.

The latest 55- page commission report says that since the economic outlook is for gradual improvement the judges should get a five per cent boost. Wh- a- a- a- a- t! Anton rejects that, but still approves increases that will bring the judges in 2016 to $ 244,112 a year? The premier doesn’t get that much! Forget my churlishness, but it’s way above what U. S. judges get paid and this is far too rich for what is middlemanagement in the legal system.

The Provincial Court Judges Association of B. C. has not responded to the Supreme Court decision and more litigation may be in the offing.

It wouldn’t be my choice. I’d slink away, and cackle all the way to the bank.