Does Patronage Matter? Connecting Influences on Judicial Appointments with Judicial Decision Making

The federal government\u27s power to appoint judges has come under increased scrutiny in recent years. While many suggest that partisan affiliation, gender and professional background may be influencing the Canadian appointment process, and some have called into question the fairness of such influences, little attention has been directed at determining whether these characteristics influence the outcome of cases. This paper studies decisions made by the Ontario Court of Appeal between 1990 and 2003 and uses a unique measure of partisan affiliation in an attempt to answer the question: do characteristics which play a role in the appointment process influence judicial decision makin

Evaluating Federally Appointed Judges in Canada: Analyzing the Controversy

This commentary describes our experiences in trying to undertake a judicial performance evaluation of federally appointed judges in Canada. Some respondents were enthusiastic about the project, but others were strongly opposed to it and worried about the effects that our survey would have on judicial independence. After describing the feedback that we received and the fallout from our project, we examine the relationship between judicial performance evaluation and judicial independence. We argue that a well-conceived judicial performance evaluation does not violate judicial independence. We then explore the resistance to judicial performance evaluation in Canada, using a comparative lens. The explanation for this opposition, it seems, lies partly in the broader socio-political context found in common law jurisdictions with parliamentary systems of government and no judicial elections. In our view, opposition to outside academic inquiry from strong elements within the Canadian legal community also forms part of the answer

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

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

Private Sector Union Density and the Wage Premium: Past, Present, and Future

The rise and decline of private sector unionization were among the more important features of the U.S. labor market during the twentieth century. Following a dramatic spurt in unionization after passage of the depression-era National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) of 1935, union density peaked in the mid-1950s, and then began a continuous decline. At the end of the century, the percentage of private wage and salary workers who were union members was less than 10 percent, not greatly different from union density prior to the NLRA

Legal mobilization and policy change : the impact of legal mobilization on official minority-language education policy outside Quebec

The doctoral thesis investigates the impact of legal mobilization and judicial decisions on official minority-language education (OMLE) policy outside Quebec using a model of judicial impact derived from New Institutionalism theory. The New Institutionalism (NI) model of judicial impact synthesizes the dominant approaches to judicial impact found in the US literature, which are reviewed in Chapter Two, and transcends them by placing them within a framework based on the New Institutionalism.The model, as developed in Chapter Three, proposes that certain factors will increase the probability of judicial decisions having a positive influence on policy, such as whether incentives are provided for implementation. The model argues that institutions---as structures and state actors---have important influences on these factors. Furthermore, the NI model recognizes that institutions play a partial and contingent role in the construction of policy preferences and discourse and in mediating the political process more generally over time.Chapter Four demonstrates that the NI model can be applied usefully to reinterpret existing accounts of how legal mobilization and judicial decisions impacted the struggle over school desegregation in the US---a case that provides a heuristic comparison to OMLE policy as it concerns the question of how and where minorities are educated.Chapters Five through Seven describe OMLE policy development in Canada from the latter 1970s until 2000, with case studies of Alberta and, to a lesser extent, Ontario and Saskatchewan. Chapter Eight reveals that legal mobilization by Francophone groups cannot be understood without reference to institutional factors, particularly the Charter of Rights and funding from the federal government. The policy impact of legal mobilization was influenced strongly by the Supreme Court's 1990 Mahe decision and by federal government funding to the provinces for OMLE policy development, while public opinion appeared to be a least a moderately constraining force on policy change. Chapter Eight further reveals that legal mobilization and judicial decisions helped Francophone groups gain access to the policy process and shaped the policy goals and discourse of actors within the process over time.Chapter Nine bolsters confidence in the conclusions generated in Chapter Eight by demonstrating how the explanations provided by the NI model, which emphasize the direct or mediating influence of institutional factors, are superior to explanations generated by a Critical Legal Studies (CLS) approach, a "systems" approach, a "dispute-centered" approach, and by Gerald Rosenberg's model. The thesis concludes by suggesting avenues for future research on judicial impact, particularly research that is focused on comparative institutionalism