Judicial appointments in Canada

Judicial appointments in Canada are made by the federal government or provincial government. Superior and federal court judges are appointed by federal government, while inferior courts are appointed by the provincial government.

There are two levels of courts in each province or territory (except Nunavut): superior (upper level) courts appointed by the federal government, and a provincial or territorial court appointed by the province or territory.

Candidates for these courts are screened by a judicial advisory committee established for each province or territory. Several provinces have created arm's length committees that make a short list of recommendations. Committee are often composed of representatives of the federal and provincial governments, the legal profession, the judiciary, and the general public.

In Ontario, the Judicial Appointments Advisory Committee (JAAC) is made up of 13 members: 7 lay members, 2 judges, 1 member appointed by the Ontario Judicial Council, and 3 from the legal community. JAAC recommends a list of 3 or 4 candidates, far less than its federal counterpart. Proponents of the system argue that this procedure has limited patronage appoints to Ontario courts, and has diversified the makeup of judges in the province. Unlike other committees, the JAAC advertises openings and interviews candidates in person.

Lawyers who meet the legal and constitutional requirements can apply, as well as existing provincial or territorial court judges. These candidates must complete a comprehensive Personal History Form, which is submitted to the appropriate advisory committee. In its assessment of each candidate, the committee reviews the PHF and consults references and other persons both in and outside the legal realm. Some committees interview the candidate.

A committee of eight persons vets candidates in each region across Canada. Each candidate is assessed as being "recommended" or "not recommended." A third designation, "highly recommended" was eliminated in 2007, which critics say enhanced the government's ability to make patronage appointments. The federal government said the system emphasizes merit, and the large pool allows the government "to address the particular needs of the court in question."

...
Wikipedia