Law Times

PAGE 6 u EDITORIAL OBITER By Glenn Kauth A reasonable compromise T is sure to prompt vigorous debate in the profession in the coming weeks. As Law Times points out on page 1 this week, there was signifi cant opposition to the task force majority's recommendation for a law practice he Law Society of Upper Canada's articling task force report program. Th e minority is calling on the law society to get rid of articling altogether. It expressed particular concerns about the stigma those who secure their licences through the alternative to articling — the law practice program — may face when they start their practices. Th ey'll also face ad- ditional fi nancial disadvantages given that they likely won't make money from the co-op placements they'll do as part of the proposed option. It' ety accept the core recommendation for a law practice program. At least initially, there' on a couple of fronts. First, it has been evident throughout the de- bate on the articling crisis that the profession has a real attachment to articling. Lawyers like articling for good reason. While there are obviously alternatives to it, there' current system will look down upon those who took the law prac- tice program as merely failed articling candidates rather than highly trained individuals who have gone through a rigorous program. But the majority' s recommendation is a realistic compromise cal tutelage under an experienced professional is a great way to learn s no doubt that a period of practi- W s a valid concern that may become reality should the law soci- s a very real possibility that those familiar with the the ropes in any fi eld. Th e report's proposal, then, keeps that option while off ering an alternative that still includes practical experience. A second positive aspect is the fact that the pro- posal is for a fi ve-year pilot project. So if the fears about stigma turn out to be correct, the profession can reconsider the issue. At least we'll have tried and found out the truth. Th ere' s no doubt that the proposal represents an imperfect compromise, especially since the de- bate may simply resurface in fi ve years. Besides the stigma, there are concerns about the cost as well as complaints that the task force is simply postponing the inevitable. But given that the profession was n't quite ready to let go of articling along with the countervailing need for change, the proposal for a pilot project is a reasonable one. — Glenn Kauth Complex cases show need for fair judicial pay The Hill plain to see we'll need more good judges than ever before. If you don't believe me, look at what' s out from the entrenched system of corrup- tion in the construction industry. As a result, we'll need honest police, smart prosecutors, and good judges to ensure justice is done. It doesn't take a legal genius to tell you there's something wrong when a couple Th ere's going to be a lot of criminal fall- s happening in Quebec. diffi cult. Take the work of the Supreme Court. For every case it chooses to hear, it may turn away three others. Th e judges still have to read the transcripts and meet with their colleagues on the bench to dis- cuss the merits of a hearing or turning down those cases. Th at takes time. Former Supreme Court justice Michel of fancy lawyers are each making twice as much as the judge they're appearing before. Judicial work is becoming increasingly Bastarache once told me that even aſt er a 10- year stint on the top court' more at what had been Lang Michener LLP than as a judge. He has since gone back to private practice with Heenan Blaikie LLP and might be making more there today. Judges who step down from the bench s bench, he made Law Times e need the best judges tax- payers' money can buy. With all of the corruption coming out these days, it' because they need to make more money don't always an- nounce it publicly. Th ey may use the old line about wanting to spend more time with their families. Th at' tant to pay judges adequately. It used to be that the fed- s why it's impor- eral government decided how much it should pay federally appointed judges. But the Su- preme Court later fi gured out there was something inherently wrong with the federal government deciding the salaries of the judges who interpret its laws. Talk about a confl ict of interest. A special compensation commission Compensation and Benefi ts Commission headed by Brian Levitt of Osler Hoskin & Harcourt LLP. It also includes business exec- utive Paul Tellier and Mark Siegel of Gowling Lafl eur Henderson LLP. Aſt er a year-long study, it delivered a re- s why we now have the Judicial should continue to have in- dexed salaries at least until the end of March 2016. One issue that prompted a lot of discussion was the proposal to pay appeal court judges more than their coun- terparts in the trial courts. Currently, all judges of the Richard Cleroux now advises the government on judges' salaries. Th e government would still get the last word, though. It pays the bill. So that' lic perception of the two courts. Does the appeal court have a higher stature in the public eye because it rules on appeals that come up from the lower courts? An earlier compensation commis- superior and appeal courts re- ceive the same salary. Part of the issue is the pub- sion had advised that while the courts are diff erent in nature, they both require an equivalent discipline and dedication. Th e Levitt commission recommended port to Justice Minister Rob Nicholson on May 15. Nicholson had six months to reply to the recommendations. He rejected some of the proposals and accepted others. Th e government agreed that judges mission this month was clear: "Th e roles of trial and appellate judges are diff erent in na- ture, but not in importance. Judges of courts of appeal make fi nal decisions on questions of law, subject to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. Trial judges have the primary role in determining questions a three-per-cent salary diff erence in favour of the appeal court judges. Th e government, however, saw the issue diff erently. Th e government' s response to the com- Thomson Reuters Canada Ltd. One Corporate Plaza, 2075 Kennedy Rd., Toronto, ON • M1T 3V4 Tel: 416-298-5141 • Fax: 416-649-7870 • www.lawtimesnews.com Group Publisher ................... Karen Lorimer Editorial Director ................... Gail J. Cohen Editor .............................. Glenn Kauth Staff Writer ................... Michael McKiernan Copy Editor ...................... Mallory Hendry CaseLaw Editor ................. Adela Rodriguez Art Director ...................... Alicia Adamson Production Co-ordinator ............. Catherine Giles Electronic Production Specialist ....... Derek Welford Advertising Sales ............... Kimberlee Pascoe Sales Co-ordinator ................... Sandy Shutt ©2012 Thomson Reuters Canada Ltd. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reprinted or stored in a retrieval system without writ- ten permission. The opinions expressed in articles are not necessarily those of the pub- lisher. Information presented is compiled from sources believed to be accurate, however, the publisher assumes no responsibility for errors or omissions. Law Times disclaims any war- ranty as to the accuracy, completeness or cur- rency of the contents of this publication and disclaims all liability in respect of the results of Law Times is printed on newsprint containing 25-30 per cent post- consumer recycled materials. Please recycle this newspaper. any action taken or not taken in reliance upon information in this publication. Publications Mail Agreement Number 40762529 • ISSN 0847-5083 Law Times is published 40 times a year by Thomson Reuters Canada Ltd., 2075 Kennedy Rd., Toronto, ON, M1T 3V4 • 416-298-5141 clb.lteditor@thomsonreuters.com CIRCULATIONS & SUBSCRIPTIONS $175.00 + HST per year in Canada (HST Reg. #R121351134) and $265.00 for foreign addresses. Single copies are $4.00 Circulation www.lawtimesnews.com " COMMENT OctOber 22, 2012 • Law times of fact, and while their determinations of law are subject to appeal, in the vast ma- jority of cases they are not appealed. Trial judges, the response noted, have "the diffi cult task of assessing the cred- ibility of witnesses." In its response, the government said judges get their mildly indexed salaries, but there'll be no question of appeal court cousins in the trial courts. It' was about fi nancial constraints. But as the commission' have cost very much, it doesn't appear sav- ing money was a big consideration. Th e government, of course, spends more in a year on limousines for ministers. We have to accept, then, that the government was probably telling the truth. It really didn't want to create a monetary distinction be- tween trial and appeal court judges. judges getting more than their s possible the government's decision s recommendation wouldn't LT uRichard Cleroux is a freelance reporter and columnist on Parliament Hill. His e-mail ad- dress is richardcleroux@rogers.com. inquiries, postal returns and address changes should include a copy of the mailing label(s) and should be sent to Law Times One Corpo- rate Plaza, 2075 Kennedy Rd. Toronto ON, M1T 3V4. Return postage guaranteed. Contact Ellen Alstein at ............416-649-9926 or fax: 416-649-7870 ellen.alstein@thomsonreuters.com ADVERTISING Advertising inquiries and materials should be directed to Sales, Law Times, 2075 Kennedy Rd., Toronto, ON, M1T 3V4 or call: Karen Lorimer ....................................416-649-9411 karen.lorimer@thomsonreuters.com Kimberlee Pascoe ..............................416-649-8875 kimberlee.pascoe@thomsonreuters.com Sandy Shutt ...... sandra.shutt@thomsonreuters.com that while the Levitt commission was right to point out that appeal court decisions have "a greater sense of fi nality" than those of the trial courts, none of that makes the salaries of appeal court judges inadequate. So that' s it for another four years. Th e

• Cover