This bill amends section 2 of New Brunswick’s Judicature Act to replace the sitting composition provision for the Court of King’s Bench with a default cap and a mechanism for executive adjustment. The court is redefined to include the Chief Justice, up to 25 other judges, and former judges who are supernumerary; the Lieutenant‑Governor in Council may increase or (in narrow circumstances) decrease that maximum by proclamation.
The change matters because it transfers discretion over the court’s authorized size from fixed statute to a proclamation mechanism, while simultaneously locking in a minimum of 11 judges for the Family Division. That combination gives the provincial executive operational flexibility to respond to caseload pressures but raises practical questions about budgeting, transparency, and the interplay with appointments and judicial independence.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill sets a starting maximum of 25 regular judges on the Court of King’s Bench, defines a ‘maximum number of judges,’ and authorizes the Lieutenant‑Governor in Council to raise or lower that maximum by proclamation. It limits decreases: a reduction is permitted only when there is a vacancy and the new maximum would not fall below the number of judges currently holding office.
Who It Affects
This directly affects the provincial government (which gains the power to change the authorized bench size), the judiciary (sitting and prospective judges), and court administrators responsible for assignments, infrastructure, and budget planning. Family‑law litigants and family-court practitioners are affected by the requirement that at least 11 judges serve in the Family Division.
Why It Matters
Shifting bench-size decisions to proclamation speeds the government's ability to scale the court up or down in response to demand, but it also reduces the role of fixed legislative limits and creates implementation questions around funding, appointment timing, and safeguards for sitting judges.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill replaces the statutory description of who composes the Court of King’s Bench with a list that names the Chief Justice, allows for up to 25 other judges by default, and expressly includes former judges who sit as supernumerary. That creates a clear starting point for the authorized size of the court while preserving continuity for retired judges who continue to carry panels.
Crucially, the act adds a definition of “maximum number of judges” and gives the Lieutenant‑Governor in Council the authority to change that maximum by proclamation. The power to increase is broad; the power to decrease is constrained: a reduction can only occur when there is an existing vacancy in a judge’s office and the reduced maximum would not drop below the number of judges who currently hold office.
In practice, that prevents the government from cutting the bench below the current complement of sitting judges or removing serving judges by proclamation.The bill also adjusts the composition of judicial staffing for the Family Division by specifying that at least 11 judges must be judges of that division. Finally, it makes a pair of technical cross‑references to ensure other subsections point to the new paragraph references, and it declares that the act comes into force on a day set by proclamation.
Together, these changes reallocate certain operational decisions about court size from fixed statute to the executive, while embedding protections for incumbent judges and a floor for family‑law judicial capacity.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The statute establishes a default cap of ‘up to 25 other judges’ for the Court of King’s Bench (in addition to the Chief Justice).
The Lieutenant‑Governor in Council may increase the maximum number of judges by proclamation without returning to the Legislature.
The Lieutenant‑Governor in Council may only decrease the maximum by proclamation if there is a vacancy in a judge’s office and the decreased number is not less than the number of judges who currently hold office — effectively preventing the removal of sitting judges by proclamation.
The act mandates that at least 11 judges be assigned to the Family Division, creating a statutory minimum for family‑law capacity.
The entire amendment — including the proclamation powers — comes into force on a day to be fixed by proclamation.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Redefines Court composition and sets a default cap
This provision rewrites the core composition clause to list the Chief Justice, a default maximum number of other judges (stated as ‘up to 25’), plus former judges who are supernumerary and former Chief Justices who continue as judges. The practical effect is to codify an initial authorized bench size while explicitly preserving supernumerary service, which sustains part‑time judicial capacity and continuity for panels.
Creates the ‘maximum number’ concept and proclamation powers
These subsections define ‘maximum number of judges’ and give the Lieutenant‑Governor in Council the power to increase or decrease that maximum by proclamation. The increase power has no statutory ceiling beyond what the proclamation sets, while the decrease power is limited: it may occur only when a vacancy exists and the lowered maximum is not less than the number of judges holding office, which prevents involuntary displacement of sitting judges via proclamation.
Establishes a Family Division minimum
The amendment replaces the prior text to require that at least 11 judges of the Court be judges of the Family Division. That creates a protected minimum allocation of judicial resources for family law, which will guide assignments and workforce planning within the court.
Updates internal references to reflect the new paragraph structure
These clauses adjust phraseology in subsections (5) and (6) so earlier cross‑references point to paragraph (3)(b) or (3)(a) as appropriate. They are drafting fixes necessary because the primary composition clause has been restructured into lettered paragraphs.
Commencement by proclamation
The act takes effect on a date fixed by the Lieutenant‑Governor in Council by proclamation. That means the government controls the timing of entry into force — a typical mechanism when administrative preparations (appointments, budgets, workspace) are necessary before changes become operative.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on this topic across all five countries.
Explore this topic in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Family‑law litigants and practitioners — The floor of at least 11 Family Division judges preserves capacity and should reduce pressure on family dockets compared with an unconstrained reallocation of judges away from family work.
- Court administration — The proclamation mechanism lets administrators and the government scale the authorized bench to match caseload shifts without needing immediate legislative amendment.
- Prospective appointees when the maximum is increased — An increase by proclamation allows the government to create additional judicial offices that can be filled, accelerating hiring to clear backlogs.
- Supernumerary judges and former Chief Justices — The explicit inclusion of supernumerary and former chief justices preserves their continued service and clarifies their status under the reworked composition clause.
Who Bears the Cost
- Provincial treasury — Expanding the authorized number of judges entails salary, benefits, courtroom space, and administrative overhead; proclamations that increase the bench require corresponding budget allocations.
- Department/Ministry responsible for courts — Operational units must plan for staffing, scheduling, and facilities when the authorized bench changes, often on short notice if a proclamation is used.
- Judicial appointment machinery (Attorney General and advisory processes) — Rapid changes to authorized numbers may pressure appointment timelines and selection panels to act quickly, potentially straining established processes.
- Smaller legal practices and litigants — If proclamations increase bench size without matching resources for support services (court staff, family services), case processing gains may be uneven, shifting burdens to users and practitioners.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between operational agility and institutional accountability: the bill empowers the executive to nimbly resize the court to meet demand, but in doing so it reduces direct legislative oversight and relies on proclamations and off‑statute financing — a trade‑off between speed and the checks that come with formal legislative adjustments.
The bill gives the executive branch an expedited tool to adjust the court’s authorized size, but it leaves key operational levers outside the statute. The proclamation power to increase the maximum carries no statutory upper limit, so the size of the authorized bench could be expanded beyond 25 by executive act; however, any real increase requires corresponding public funding and administrative capacity, which the bill does not address.
Conversely, the constrained reduction rule—allowing decreases only where there is a vacancy and not below the number of judges holding office—protects incumbents but could leave the statutory cap above what the government considers fiscally sustainable, producing a mismatch between the authorized ceiling and budgeted positions.
The act also raises transparency and oversight questions. Because proclamations typically do not require debate in the Legislature, the government can change the authorized bench without the same level of scrutiny as a statutory amendment.
That may be efficient for responding to caseloads, but it shifts important structural decisions about the judiciary from legislative process to executive discretion. Finally, the Family Division minimum creates a protected allocation that helps preserve specialized capacity but may reduce the government’s flexibility to reassign judges across divisions during temporary surges in other case types.
There's more to this law than the bill.
Codify Laws traces every connection across the legislative lifecycle.