Federal Court of Appeal overturns decision requiring action on judicial vacancies
OTTAWA — A panel of judges has overturned a Federal Court ruling that directed the federal government to step up the pace of judicial appointments to address an 'untenable' number of vacancies.
The Federal Court of Appeal allowed the federal appeal of the ruling, saying the lower court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case.
In a February 2024 ruling, Federal Court Justice Henry Brown said constitutional convention requires Ottawa to appoint a new judge to fill a vacancy within a reasonable time.
The government asked the Federal Court of Appeal to set aside the judgment and dismiss the underlying application brought by lawyer Yavar Hameed.
In his application, Hameed said he had experienced significant delays in litigation proceedings on behalf of vulnerable clients.
Among the material filed in the initial case was a May 2023 letter to then-prime minister Justin Trudeau from Chief Justice Richard Wagner, chair of the Canadian Judicial Council, expressing 'deep concern' about the 85 judicial vacancies on superior and federal courts.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 19, 2025.
Jim Bronskill, The Canadian Press
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
National Observer
an hour ago
- National Observer
New supply management law can't save the system from Trump, experts say
A new law meant to protect supply management might not be enough to shield the system in trade talks with a Trump administration bent on eliminating it, trade experts say. "It's certainly more difficult to strike a deal with the United States now with the passage of this bill that basically forces Canada to negotiate with one hand tied behind its back," said William Pellerin, a trade lawyer and partner at the firm McMillan LLP. "Now that we've removed the digital service tax, dairy and supply management is probably the number 1 trade irritant that we have with the United States. That remains very much unresolved." When Trump briefly paused trade talks with Canada on June 27 over the digital services tax — shortly before Ottawa capitulated by dropping the tax — he zeroed in on Canada's system of supply management. In a social media post, Trump called Canada a "very difficult country to TRADE with, including the fact that they have charged our Farmers as much as 400% Tariffs, for years, on Dairy Products." Canada can charge about 250 per cent tariffs on US dairy imports over a set quota established by the Canada-US-Mexico Agreement. The International Dairy Foods Association, which represents the US dairy industry, said in March the US has never come close to reaching those quotas, though the association also said that's because of other barriers Canada has erected. When Bill C-202 passed through Parliament last month, Bloc Québécois MPs hailed it as a clear win protecting Quebec farmers from American trade demands. The Bloc's bill, which received royal assent on June 26, prevents the foreign affairs minister from making commitments in trade negotiations to either increase the tariff rate quota or reduce tariffs for imports over a set threshold. On its face, that rule would prevent Canadian trade negotiators from offering to drop the import barriers that shield dairy and egg producers in Canada from price shocks. But while the law appears to rule out using supply management as a bargaining chip in trade talks with the US, it doesn't completely constrain the government. Pellerin said that if Prime Minister Mark Carney is seeking a way around C-202, he might start by looking into conducting the trade talks personally, instead of leaving them to Foreign Affairs Minister Anita Anand. Carney dismissed the need for the new law during the recent election but vowed to keep supply management off the table in negotiations with the US. Pellerin said the government could also address the trade irritant by expanding the number of players who can access dairy quotas beyond "processors." "(C-202) doesn't expressly talk about changing or modifying who would be able to access the quota," he said. Expanding access to quota, he said, would likely "lead to companies like grocery stores being able to import US cheeses, and that would probably please the United States to a significant degree." Carleton University associate professor Philippe Lagassé, an expert on Parliament and the Crown, said the new law doesn't extend past something called the "royal prerogative" — the ability of the executive branch of government to carry out certain actions in, for example, the conduct of foreign affairs. That suggests the government isn't constrained by the law, he said. "I have doubts that the royal prerogative has been displaced by the law. There is no specific language binding the Crown and it would appear to run contrary to the wider intent of the (law that it modifies)," he said by email. "That said, if the government believes that the law is binding, then it effectively is. As defenders of the bill insisted, it gives the government leverage in negotiation by giving the impression that Parliament has bound it on this issue." He said a trade treaty requires enabling legislation, so a new bill could remove the supply management constraints. "The bill adds an extra step and some constraints, but doesn't prevent supply management from eventually being removed or weakened," he said. Trade lawyer Mark Warner, principal at MAAW Law, said Canada could simply dispense with the law through Parliament if it decides it needs to make concessions to, for example, preserve the auto industry. "The argument for me that the government of Canada sits down with another country, particularly the United States, and says we can't negotiate that because Parliament has passed a bill — I have to tell you, I've never met an American trade official or lawyer who would take that seriously," Warner said. "My sense of this is it would just go through Parliament, unless you think other opposition parties would bring down the government over it." While supply management has long been a target for US trade negotiators, the idea of killing it has been a non-starter in Canadian politics for at least as long. Warner said any attempt to do away with it would be swiftly met with litigation, Charter challenges and provinces stepping up to fill a federal void. "The real cost of that sort of thing is political, so if you try to take it away, people are screaming and they're blocking the highways and they are calling you names and the Bloc is blocking anything through Parliament — you pay a cost that way," he said. But a compromise on supply management might not be that far-fetched. "The system itself won't be dismantled. I don't think that's anywhere near happening in the coming years and even decades," said Pellerin. "But I think that there are changes that could be made, particularly through the trade agreements, including by way of kind of further quotas. Further reduction in the tariffs for outside quota amounts and also in terms of who can actually bring in product." The United States trade representative raised specific concerns about supply management in the spring, citing quota rules established under the CUSMA trade pact that are not being applied as the US expected and ongoing frustration with the pricing of certain types of milk products. Former Canadian diplomat Louise Blais said that if Canada were to 'respect the spirit' of CUSMA as the Americans understand it, the problem might actually solve itself. 'We jump to the conclusion that it's dismantlement or nothing else, but in fact there's a middle ground," she said.
National Post
an hour ago
- National Post
Joel Kotkin: The West's immigration reckoning is here
The recent riots in Los Angeles, sparked by President Trump's crackdown on undocumented immigrants, could be a harbinger to a new era of ethnic conflict not only in the U.S. but throughout the West, including Canada. Article content Many leading countries for immigrants, notably in the Middle East, may have higher percentages of international migrants, but many are only there temporarily. But in Canada, Australia, and the U.S. — where the foreign born represent between 15 and 30 per cent of the total population — most come to stay, with sometimes problematic results. Article content Article content Article content President Joe Biden changed immigration policies, allowing millions, some barely vetted, to enter at ever increasing rates, causing the number of undocumented immigrants to soar past 11 million. Until recently, former Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau followed a similar liberalization that allowed large numbers of migrants, some coming as refugees, into the country Article content Article content In both countries, the mass migration has deepened already serious class divides as many new migrants remain poor. In Canada, one in five recent immigrants now lives in poverty, with most suffering from 'deep poverty' — an income below 75 per cent of the poverty line — compared to only five per cent of the whole population. Article content Such complexities are rarely part of the public discussion of immigration. In the U.S. legacy media spin on the crackdown focuses on the abuses and often ham handed approach used by the Trump administration in working class Latino communities. Stories of individual cases of respectable and upright families targeted by the crackdown predominate, stirring up ever more fear of a racist, even 'fascist' crackdown on minorities. Article content Article content In contrast, the MAGA view focuses on criminal migrants and radical demonstrators, some of whom have engaged in violence. The images of young protesters waving Mexican flags is offensive to many American citizens, even in California. For MAGA, the crackdown represents both a return to legality as well as a defence from hostile elements. Article content Article content Both views largely ignore a more complex, and often contradictory reality. Historically, as immigrant advocates rightly claim, the migration of peoples have been critical to the economic health, and cultural dynamism, of countries such as the United States, Canada, Australia, the United Kingdom, and France. Article content Guest workers, for example, played a critical role in the revival of Europe's economies, and steady immigration sparked growth in Canada, the U.S. and Australia. Yet as immigration levels have soared, the economic payoffs seem to be increasingly dubious, particularly when we put into account the changing structure of the labour market.
Globe and Mail
2 hours ago
- Globe and Mail
The NDP will rise again
Take a lickin' and keep on tickin'. In pondering the condition of the federal New Democratic Party, the old expression comes to mind. The New Democrats are almost as low as low can go. In 2011, they won 103 seats. They now have seven, their fewest in history. They've lost their official party status. They're broke. They have less and less working-class horsepower. They have no Bernie Sanders. The seven members that remain can't even get along. Three of them raised Cain about not being adequately consulted on the selection of Don Davies as interim leader. Tom Mulcair, the former party leader and now a shrewd CTV commentator, doesn't mince his words: 'It's a gong show.' Some, though not Mr. Mulcair, think it could be game over for the party and that we'll move to a two-party system like in the United States. Less choice. More polarization. Diminished democracy. But don't bet on that. It's not about to happen. Just as it did after the 1993 election, when it was reduced to just nine seats, the NDP will ascend from the depths once again. Before long, the New Democrats will be back to their usual level of support between 15 and 20 per cent. They will be a force that Prime Minister Mark Carney – unless he can get enough floor-crossers to form a majority government – will have to reckon with to stay in power. Given their dismal standing, the NDP will not be hesitant to force an early election. They have nowhere to go but up. Several considerations make a comeback for the party likely. Polls already indicate the recent election result was a fluke. The NDP is at 12-per-cent popularity in the latest Nanos poll, which is double their share of the vote in the election. Without official status, NDP looks to stay relevant in Parliament The Mark Carney Liberals are moving from Justin Trudeau's wokeish leftist brand to the moderate middle. This gives the New Democrats more open real estate on the political spectrum than they've had in decades. Jean Chrétien moved the Liberals to the middle but his factory-floor persona gave him blue-collar appeal. As Dalton Camp once quipped, he looked like 'the driver of the getaway car.' It's the leader who dictates a party's fortunes and the NDP will get a new one who will change theirs. For all his integrity and noble intentions, Jagmeet Singh was a dud as a vote-getter. He could not connect. As Matt Fodor, author of From Layton to Singh, points out, instead of being the outsider party challenging the status quo, the NDP was seen lately, via its support for Mr. Trudeau, as the party defending it. It diluted its brand. It became ambiguous. It was left to the Conservatives to channel the people's wrath. For a new leader, the party has potentially formidable candidates in the wings, like former Alberta premier Rachel Notley – if she can be convinced to run – and Nathan Cullen, the former British Columbia MP who made a good run for the party leadership in 2012. He's witty, camera-friendly, experienced and policy-sharp. Though feeble federally, the New Democrats are well entrenched provincially. They form the government in B.C. and Manitoba and are positioned strongly in opposition in several other provinces. Sometimes you get the breaks in politics, sometimes you don't. In the past election, the NDP got trapped by the Donald Trump effect. Progressive voters ran to the Liberals because they wanted a strong government to put up a resistance to the U.S. President. But when the next Canadian election rolls around, Mr. Trump will be either out, or on his way out. Though the NDP under Mr. Singh was a political failure, it was not a policy failure. In teaming with the Liberals, it pressed for and helped secure social advances in child care, dental care and pharmacare – improvements the party can be proud of. It's worth remembering that as recently as a decade ago, the party under Mr. Mulcair was number one in some polls and appeared on the verge of forming government. It fell victim in Quebec to Mr. Mulcair's principled stand on the niqab issue, and in the rest of the country to his tacking too moderately. The Liberals had a new, big-name leader in Justin Trudeau, and pounced. But there's no reason why the New Democrats can't rebuild and issue a hard challenge to the two main parties again. They're a Canadian institution. Their values are woven into this country's fabric. They've had their lickin'. They'll keep on tickin'.
