{"id":12625,"date":"2021-03-11T06:53:03","date_gmt":"2021-03-11T11:53:03","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/democracywatch.ca\/?p=12625"},"modified":"2025-05-25T07:16:38","modified_gmt":"2025-05-25T11:16:38","slug":"democracy-watch-calls-on-ford-government-to-stop-changes-that-will-increase-patronage-and-cronyism-in-ontarios-judicial-appointments","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/democracywatch.ca\/fr\/democracy-watch-calls-on-ford-government-to-stop-changes-that-will-increase-patronage-and-cronyism-in-ontarios-judicial-appointments\/","title":{"rendered":"Democracy Watch calls on Ford government to stop changes that will increase patronage and cronyism in Ontario\u2019s judicial appointmentsDemocracy Watch calls on Ford government to stop changes that will increase patronage and cronyism in Ontario\u2019s judicial appointments"},"content":{"rendered":"

Bill 245 will, among other changes, make system too open to political interference, violating judges\u2019 independence and Charter right to impartial courts<\/span><\/h3>\r\n

Democracy Watch will file a court case against the changes if they become law<\/span><\/h3>\r\n\r\n

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:<\/b>
Thursday, March 11, 2021<\/p>\r\n\r\n

OTTAWA \u2013 Today, Democracy Watch released the submission<\/a> it will make via Zoom at 4 pm to the Committee on the Legislative Assembly<\/a><\/span> that calls on the Ford government to reverse the changes made by Bill 245<\/a><\/span> that will give the Attorney General too much control and political discretion in appointments of Ontario judges.<\/p>\r\n\r\n

While not ideal, Ontario\u2019s current judicial appointment system is considered to be one of the leading systems in the world because of its independence from, and restriction of, political influence. The changes proposed to the Courts of Justice Act<\/em> in Schedule 3 of Bill 245 will:<\/p>\r\n\r\n

  1. increase the number of members of Ontario\u2019s Judicial Appointments Advisory Committee (JAAC) that the Attorney General appoints from 7 to 10 (of 13 total), and;<\/li>\r\n
  2. increase the number of candidates the JAAC sends to the Attorney General for each judge position from two or more to 6 or more (with the Attorney General allowed to reject all 6 recommended candidates and ask for a new list of 6 candidates as many times as s\/he wants).<\/li><\/ol>\r\n\r\n

    These two changes will politicize the appointment of judges in Ontario, opening it up to patronage and cronyism that will undermine the public\u2019s confidence in the independence and impartiality of the courts.<\/p>\r\n\r\n

    Democracy Watch\u2019s position is that the changes will make Ontario\u2019s system for appointing judges unconstitutional, as it will violate the constitutional principle that guarantees the independence of courts, and will violate the public\u2019s Charter<\/em> right to impartial courts.<\/p>\r\n\r\n

    Last November, Democracy Watch filed a court case in Federal Court<\/a><\/span> challenging the federal government\u2019s system for appointing judges because it is also open to political interference that violates the constitutional principle that guarantees the independence of courts, and the public\u2019s Charter<\/em> right to impartial courts.<\/p>\r\n\r\n

    If Bill 245 is enacted in its current form, Democracy Watch will also file a court case challenging the constitutionality of Ontario\u2019s new appointments system.<\/p>\r\n\r\n

    The Advocates\u2019 Society<\/a><\/span>, the Federation of Ontario Law Associations<\/a><\/span>, the Canadian Council of Criminal Defence Lawyers<\/a><\/span>, the Criminal Lawyers\u2019 Association<\/a><\/span>, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association<\/a><\/span> and several associations representing racialized lawyers<\/a><\/span> have all expressed concerns about the negative effect of the proposed Bill 245 changes on the independence and impartiality of Ontario judges.<\/p>\r\n\r\n

    \u201cThe Ford Cabinet is proposing dangerously unethical changes to Ontario\u2019s appointment system for judges that will make the system open to patronage and cronyism,\u201d<\/em> said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. \u201cDemocracy Watch will challenge the new appointments system for judges in court if it is implemented as set out in Bill 245 because it violates the constitutionally guaranteed independence of the courts, independence that is needed to ensure democratic good government and fair law enforcement for all.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\r\n\r\n

    \u201cThe current appointments system is not ideal, and it should be changed to decrease the control that the Attorney General has over the appointment process, not increase it as Bill 245 proposes,\u201d<\/em> said Conacher.<\/p>\r\n\r\n

    The constitutional principle that guarantees the independence of judges and the courts has been upheld in several rulings on the measures in Part VII of the Constitution<\/em><\/a><\/span>. And sections 7<\/a><\/span> and 11(d)<\/a><\/span> (and, indirectly, 24(1)<\/a><\/span>) of the Charter<\/em> have been applied in rulings to ensure impartial court hearings.<\/p>\r\n\r\n

    Like Ontario\u2019s current system, Cabinet ministers in Manitoba<\/a><\/span> (s. 3.3) and B.C.<\/a><\/span> (s. 21) choose a minority of the members of the advisory committee for their provincial courts (ideally the Cabinet should not choose any of the members).<\/p>\r\n\r\n

    Also like Ontario\u2019s current system, the advisory committees in Quebec<\/a><\/span> and the UK<\/a><\/span> submit only 1-3 candidates for each open judge position, and the minister is required to choose from that short list. In the UK where the committee only submits one candidate, the minister must explain in writing to the committee if s\/he rejects the recommended candidate.<\/p>\r\n\r\n

    – 30 \u2013<\/p>\r\n

    FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT:<\/strong>
    Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch
    Tel: (613) 241-5179
    Cell: 416-546-3443
    Email:     info@democracywatch.ca<\/a><\/p>\r\n

    See more at Democracy Watch\u2019s Stop Bad Government Appointments Campaign<\/a><\/span> and Stop Unfair Law Enforcement Campaign<\/a><\/span><\/p>\r\n\r\n

    Bill 245 will, among other changes, make system too open to political interference, violating judges\u2019 independence and Charter right to impartial courts<\/span><\/h3>\r\n

    Democracy Watch will file a court case against the changes if they become law<\/span><\/h3>\r\n\r\n

    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:<\/b>
    Thursday, March 11, 2021<\/p>\r\n\r\n

    OTTAWA \u2013 Today, Democracy Watch released the submission<\/a> it will make via Zoom at 4 pm to the Committee on the Legislative Assembly<\/a><\/span> that calls on the Ford government to reverse the changes made by Bill 245<\/a><\/span> that will give the Attorney General too much control and political discretion in appointments of Ontario judges.<\/p>\r\n\r\n

    While not ideal, Ontario\u2019s current judicial appointment system is considered to be one of the leading systems in the world because of its independence from, and restriction of, political influence. The changes proposed to the Courts of Justice Act<\/em> in Schedule 3 of Bill 245 will:<\/p>\r\n\r\n

    1. increase the number of members of Ontario\u2019s Judicial Appointments Advisory Committee (JAAC) that the Attorney General appoints from 7 to 10 (of 13 total), and;<\/li>\r\n
    2. increase the number of candidates the JAAC sends to the Attorney General for each judge position from two or more to 6 or more (with the Attorney General allowed to reject all 6 recommended candidates and ask for a new list of 6 candidates as many times as s\/he wants).<\/li><\/ol>\r\n\r\n

      These two changes will politicize the appointment of judges in Ontario, opening it up to patronage and cronyism that will undermine the public\u2019s confidence in the independence and impartiality of the courts.<\/p>\r\n\r\n

      Democracy Watch\u2019s position is that the changes will make Ontario\u2019s system for appointing judges unconstitutional, as it will violate the constitutional principle that guarantees the independence of courts, and will violate the public\u2019s Charter<\/em> right to impartial courts.<\/p>\r\n\r\n

      Last November, Democracy Watch filed a court case in Federal Court<\/a><\/span> challenging the federal government\u2019s system for appointing judges because it is also open to political interference that violates the constitutional principle that guarantees the independence of courts, and the public\u2019s Charter<\/em> right to impartial courts.<\/p>\r\n\r\n

      If Bill 245 is enacted in its current form, Democracy Watch will also file a court case challenging the constitutionality of Ontario\u2019s new appointments system.<\/p>\r\n\r\n

      The Advocates\u2019 Society<\/a><\/span>, the Federation of Ontario Law Associations<\/a><\/span>, the Canadian Council of Criminal Defence Lawyers<\/a><\/span>, the Criminal Lawyers\u2019 Association<\/a><\/span>, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association<\/a><\/span> and several associations representing racialized lawyers<\/a><\/span> have all expressed concerns about the negative effect of the proposed Bill 245 changes on the independence and impartiality of Ontario judges.<\/p>\r\n\r\n

      \u201cThe Ford Cabinet is proposing dangerously unethical changes to Ontario\u2019s appointment system for judges that will make the system open to patronage and cronyism,\u201d<\/em> said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. \u201cDemocracy Watch will challenge the new appointments system for judges in court if it is implemented as set out in Bill 245 because it violates the constitutionally guaranteed independence of the courts, independence that is needed to ensure democratic good government and fair law enforcement for all.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\r\n\r\n

      \u201cThe current appointments system is not ideal, and it should be changed to decrease the control that the Attorney General has over the appointment process, not increase it as Bill 245 proposes,\u201d<\/em> said Conacher.<\/p>\r\n\r\n

      The constitutional principle that guarantees the independence of judges and the courts has been upheld in several rulings on the measures in Part VII of the Constitution<\/em><\/a><\/span>. And sections 7<\/a><\/span> and 11(d)<\/a><\/span> (and, indirectly, 24(1)<\/a><\/span>) of the Charter<\/em> have been applied in rulings to ensure impartial court hearings.<\/p>\r\n\r\n

      Like Ontario\u2019s current system, Cabinet ministers in Manitoba<\/a><\/span> (s. 3.3) and B.C.<\/a><\/span> (s. 21) choose a minority of the members of the advisory committee for their provincial courts (ideally the Cabinet should not choose any of the members).<\/p>\r\n\r\n

      Also like Ontario\u2019s current system, the advisory committees in Quebec<\/a><\/span> and the UK<\/a><\/span> submit only 1-3 candidates for each open judge position, and the minister is required to choose from that short list. In the UK where the committee only submits one candidate, the minister must explain in writing to the committee if s\/he rejects the recommended candidate.<\/p>\r\n\r\n

      – 30 \u2013<\/p>\r\n

      FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT:<\/strong>
      Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch
      Tel: (613) 241-5179
      Cell: 416-546-3443
      Email:       info@democracywatch.ca<\/a><\/p>\r\n

      See more at Democracy Watch\u2019s Stop Bad Government Appointments Campaign<\/a><\/span> and Stop Unfair Law Enforcement Campaign<\/a><\/span><\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

      Bill 245 will, among other changes, make system too open to political interference, violating judges\u2019 independence and Charter right to impartial courts Democracy Watch will file a court case against the changes if they become law FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:Thursday, March 11, 2021 OTTAWA \u2013 Today, Democracy Watch released the submission it will make via Zoom […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":12,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[5],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-12625","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-news"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/democracywatch.ca\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12625","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/democracywatch.ca\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/democracywatch.ca\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/democracywatch.ca\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/12"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/democracywatch.ca\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=12625"}],"version-history":[{"count":7,"href":"https:\/\/democracywatch.ca\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12625\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":18437,"href":"https:\/\/democracywatch.ca\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12625\/revisions\/18437"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/democracywatch.ca\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=12625"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/democracywatch.ca\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=12625"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/democracywatch.ca\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=12625"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}