This case involved the appeal of three non-Charter cases in Ontario where the Attorney General disputed the amicus
curiae rates as determined by the court, raising constitutional issues about the relationship between the judiciary and the executive and legislative branches in our society.
Not exact matches
(1) the inability to set
rates of compensation «would unduly weaken the courts» appointment power and ability to name an amicus of their choosing» (para 123); (2) «the integrity of the judicial process would be imperilled» and should not be dependent upon the Crown (para 124); and (3) «the Attorney General's unilateral control over the remuneration of amici
curiae might create an appearance of bias and place amici themselves in an unavoidable conflict of interest» (para 125).
What is at issue is whether a court's inherent or implied jurisdiction extends to fixing the
rates of compensation for amici
curiae.
The
rates set by the court in these cases exceeded the Legal Aid
rate in each of these cases because the amicus
curiae refused these lower
rates.
The Attorney General sought to pay the Legal Aid
rate because they proposed these amicus
curiae played a role similar to defence counsel.