Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T05:59:10.105Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Exploring the Links between Party and Appointment: Canadian Federal Judicial Appointments from 1989 to 2003

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 September 2010

Lori Hausegger ,
Troy Riddell ,
Matthew Hennigar  and
Emmanuelle Richez
Lori Hausegger*
Affiliation:
Boise State University
Troy Riddell*
Affiliation:
University of Guelph
Matthew Hennigar*
Affiliation:
Brock University
Emmanuelle Richez*
Affiliation:
McGill University
*
Lori Hausegger, Department of Political Science, Boise State University, 1900 University Dr., Boise, ID 83725-1935, [email protected].
Troy Riddell, Department of Political Science, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON NIG 2W1, [email protected]
Matthew Hennigar, Department of Political Science, Brock University, 500 Glenridge Avenue, St. Catharines, ON L2S 3A1, [email protected]
Emmanuelle Richez, Department of Political Science, McGill University, Rm. 414, Leacock Building, 855 Sherbrooke St. West, Montreal, Quebec H3A 2T7, [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Abstract. Studies of federal judicial appointments made before 1988 discovered significant partisan ties between judicial appointees and the governments appointing them. In 1988, in response to criticism of these “patronage appointments,” the Mulroney government introduced screening committees to the process. This article explores the impact of these committees. Using information gained from surveys of legal elites, we trace the minor and major political connections of federal judicial appointees from 1989 to 2003 in order to determine whether patronage has continued despite the reform to the process. We discover that political connections continued to play an important role in who was selected for a judicial appointment. However, these connections were not quite as common as those found before 1988, and the new process does appear to have prevented the politically motivated appointment of completely unqualified candidates. Interestingly, our findings also suggest that the impact of patronage varies by region and interacts with other, newer influences, in particular, concerns for group representation on the bench. The paper concludes by briefly discussing these results in the context of the relationship between judicial selection and politics with a comparative perspective.

Résumé. Les études sur les nominations judiciaires fédérales réalisées avant 1988 ont découvert des liens partisans étroits entre les juges nommés à la cour et les gouvernements les nommant. En 1988, en réponse aux critiques sur le favoritisme entourant les nominations, le gouvernement Mulroney a introduit des comités d'évaluation dans le processus. Cet article explore l'impact de ces comités. En utilisant de l'information recueillie lors de sondages menés auprès de la communauté légale, nous retraçons les connexions politiques mineures et majeures des attributaires judiciaires fédéraux de 1989 à 2003 en vue de déterminer si le favoritisme a persisté malgré la réforme du système. Nous découvrons que les connexions politiques continuent à jouer un rôle important dans la sélection des juges. Toutefois, ces connexions ne sont pas aussi importantes que celles qu'on a identifiées avant 1988 et le nouveau processus semble avoir réussi à prévenir les nominations partisanes de candidats entièrement non qualifiés. Les résultats de notre recherche suggèrent également que l'effet du favoritisme varie par région et dépend aussi d'autres facteurs plus nouveaux, en particulier le souci de représentation de certains groupes au sein de la magistrature. L'article conclut en discutant brièvement ces résultats dans le contexte de la relation entre la sélection judiciaire et la politique dans une perspective comparative.

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique , Volume 43 , Issue 3 , September 2010 , pp. 633 - 659
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Political Science Association 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Canadian Bar Association (CBA). 1985. The Appointment of Judges in Canada. Toronto: CBA [McKelvey Report].Google Scholar
Canadian Bar Association (CBA). 2005. “Federal Judicial Appointment Process.” www.cba.org/CBA/submissions/pdf/05-43-eng.pdf (July 2009).Google Scholar
Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs Office. http://www.fja-cmf.gc.ca (July 2009).Google Scholar
Copeland, Paul. 1997. “Judicial Appointment Advisory Committee Information Report.” In Criminal Law Association Newsletter, April, http://www.criminallawyers.ca/newslett/apr97/copeland.htm (July 2009).Google Scholar
Forcese, Craig and Freeman, Aaron. 2005. The Laws of Government: The Legal Foundations of Canadian Government. Toronto: Irwin Law.Google Scholar
Greene, Ian, Baar, Carl, McCormick, Peter, Szablowski, George and Thomas, Martin. 1998. Final Appeal: A Study of Appellate Court Decision-Making. Toronto: Lorimer.Google Scholar
Guarnieri, Carlo. 2004. “Appointment and career of judges in continental Europe: the rise of judicial self-government.” Legal Studies 24: 169–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Makin, Kirk. 2005. “Appointment of Judges Too Political, Critics Say.” The Globe and Mail (Toronto), May 16, A7.Google Scholar
Makin, Kirk. 2007. “Two-thirds Back Electing Judges.” The Globe and Mail (Toronto), April. 9, A1.Google Scholar
Malleson, Kate. 2006. “The New Judicial Appointments Commission in England and Wales: New Wine in New Bottles?” In Appointing Judges in an Age of Judicial Power: Critical Perspectives from Around the World, ed. Malleson, Kate and Russell, Peter H.. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mancuso, Maureen, Atkinson, Michael M., Blais, André, Greene, Ian and Nevitte, Neil. 1998. A Question of Ethics: Canadians Speak Out. Toronto: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Matisz, Derek. 2005. “Appointment of s.92 Judges in Canada.” Unpublished MA major research paper. University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario.Google Scholar
Meek, Jim. 1998. “Justice Heather Robertson: ‘Not Recommended.’” Halifax Chronicle-Herald, July 14. B1.Google Scholar
Millar, Andre S. 2000. “The ‘New’ Federal Judicial Appointments Process: the First Ten Years.” Alberta Law Review 38: 616–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reddick, Malia. 2002. “Merit Selection: A Review of the Social Scientific Literature.” Dickinson Law Review 106: 729–45.Google Scholar
Riddell, Troy, Hausegger, Lori and Hennigar, Matthew. 2008. “Federal Judicial Appointments: A Look at Patronage in Federal Appointments since 1988.” University of Toronto Law Journal 58 (1): 39–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riddell, Troy, Hausegger, Lori and Hennigar, Matthew. 2009. “Federal Judicial Selection: Examining the Harper Appointments and Reforms.” Journal of Parliamentary and Political Law 2: 499–522.Google Scholar
Russell, Peter and Ziegel, Jacob. 1991. “Federal Judicial Appointments: An Appraisal of the First Mulroney Government's Appointments and the New Judicial Advisory Committees.” University of Toronto Law Journal 41(1): 4–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmitz, Cristin. 2005. “Federal Judges Often Liberal Donors, Survey Finds.” Ottawa Citizen, May 6, A5.Google Scholar
Tarr, G. Alan. 2006. Judicial Process and Judicial Policymaking. 4th ed.Belmont CA: Thomson.Google Scholar