The Fewer Backlogs and Less Partisan Tribunals Act, 2024 establishes an Adjudicative Tribunal Justice Council with statutory powers to monitor tribunals, require and approve recruitment plans, oversee selection committees, and deliver opinions and reports to the Legislature. It prescribes term lengths, renewal procedures, confidential review processes for non‑renewals or dismissals, and declares tribunal roster positions permanent unless formally declared redundant under a prescribed process.
For administrative leaders and counsel, the Act restructures who exercises practical control over tribunal fills and renewals: ministers and the Lieutenant Governor in Council retain formal appointment power but must act within recruitment plans approved by the Council and respect selection committee recommendations, subject to specified response processes. The Act centralizes oversight, adds procedural protections for tribunal members, and creates new notice, reporting and survey obligations intended to improve timeliness, diversity and independence of tribunal decision‑making.
At a Glance
What It Does
Creates a statutory Council that monitors tribunals, can conduct inquiries, requires councils’ approval of recruitment plans before appointments, and reviews non‑renewals and dismissals through confidential procedures. It fixes default term lengths for chairs and members, makes roster positions 'permanent' unless declared redundant through a prescribed proposal-and-consultation process, and enables interim acting appointments for up to two years.
Who It Affects
Responsible ministers and the Lieutenant Governor in Council (who still make appointments), tribunal chairs and members, selection committees, and adjudicative tribunal users and advocates who will be surveyed. Legal organizations that participate in appointments and the Assembly (which appoints the Council chair) are directly involved in governance changes.
Why It Matters
The Act legally shifts significant operational authority from individual ministers toward a standing oversight body and structured selection process, embedding merit, diversity and procedural protections into appointment and renewal cycles. That changes how governments manage tribunal capacity and how affected members can challenge non‑renewals or dismissals.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill builds a permanent oversight body, the Adjudicative Tribunal Justice Council, composed of members appointed by the Assembly, the Attorney General, professional bodies and other stakeholders. The Council must meet regularly, may hire staff, and has a statutory mandate to monitor tribunal structures and performance, identify impediments (including unfilled roster positions), prepare draft recruitment plans and report to the Legislature.
It may hold inquiries under the Public Inquiries Act and require tribunals to provide information within set deadlines.
On appointments, the Act requires a recruitment plan approved by the Council before the Lieutenant Governor in Council or a Minister can appoint a new member. Each recruitment plan must specify the positions, minimum qualifications, selection steps, proposed selection‑committee membership and outreach strategy to attract diverse, qualified candidates.
A selection committee appointed under the plan assesses candidates and recommends the most qualified persons whose appointments would reflect the tribunal’s community of users; the government must accept, ask for reconsideration, or reject the recommendation within 60 days and must provide written reasons when not accepting.The Act sets default term lengths and a structured renewal path. For non‑chairs, first terms are two or three years depending on prior adjudicative experience, with subsequent possible renewals to three‑ and five‑year terms; chairs get five‑year appointments and may serve up to 15 years total.
The Council (or tribunal chair in some steps) must be satisfied that qualifications, performance and diversity needs are met before renewal. Where a member faces non‑renewal, the Act provides confidential review options to the Council, and where just cause for dismissal is alleged the Council triggers an independent investigator and, if necessary, a dismissal proceeding before an independent adjudicator.The bill treats roster positions as effectively permanent once established through an appointment.
A responsible Minister who believes a reduction is necessary must prepare a confidential roster reduction proposal with caseload analysis, list of positions proposed for redundancy, selection protocol and notice/compensation proposals, share it with the Council for an opinion, and may then implement it after considering that opinion. Transitional measures include extending soon‑expiring terms, allowing the Council to make interim acting appointments for up to two years to fill vacancies without full compliance with the new appointment rules, and requiring the Council to run user satisfaction surveys using contact information tribunals must provide.
The Act also amends the existing Adjudicative Tribunals Accountability, Governance and Appointments Act, 2009 to assign new duties to the Council and to require chair concurrence for non‑chair appointments and reappointments.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The Council’s membership is fixed: one chair appointed by the Assembly and nine other members chosen by the Minister and specified professional bodies, with at least five members required for quorum.
Before any new appointment, the responsible Minister must obtain Council approval of a recruitment plan that specifies selection steps, proposed selection‑committee composition and outreach to promote diversity.
First terms for non‑chair members are two years if the candidate has under two years’ adjudicative experience, otherwise three years; chairs receive five‑year terms and may serve up to 15 years in total.
Once a tribunal position is created by appointment it is treated as a permanent roster slot; ministers can only declare positions redundant after preparing a confidential, evidence‑based roster reduction proposal and consulting the Council.
If a minister proposes legislation or directives affecting tribunals, the minister must give the Council six months’ advance written notice and the Council has 60 days to deliver a written opinion on compatibility with tribunal independence and performance.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Establishes the Adjudicative Tribunal Justice Council and its powers
This part creates the Council, prescribes a nine‑member composition plus a chair appointed by the Assembly, sets meeting frequency, staff hiring authority and quorum, and defines duties including monitoring tribunals, drafting recruitment plans and reporting to the Legislature. Practically, it gives a single entity statutory standing to request information, conduct inquiries under the Public Inquiries Act and issue opinions that ministries must consider, concentrating oversight functions that were previously dispersed.
Makes Council approval of recruitment plans mandatory and structures selection committees
This part requires an approved recruitment plan before filling any new tribunal vacancy: the plan must describe positions, minimum qualifications, selection steps, the selection committee’s proposed membership and outreach measures to attract diverse candidates. Selection committees assess qualifications using criteria from the 2009 Act and recommend candidates; the government has 60 days to accept, request reconsideration or reject and must explain rejections. The result is a formalized, committee‑driven gatekeeping role for appointments.
Sets default term lengths, renewal criteria and a two‑tiered non‑renewal review process
This part prescribes initial and renewal term lengths for chairs and non‑chairs and conditions for merit‑based renewal tied to qualifications, performance and diversity. It distinguishes non‑renewals that do not amount to dismissal (providing six months’ confidential notice and a Council review option) from those alleging just cause (triggering an independent investigator and possible dismissal proceedings). Chairs have separate suspension and inquiry procedures. These mechanics create procedural protections and a predictable renewal cadence.
Declares roster positions permanent and prescribes a confidential redundancy process
Once a person is appointed to a tribunal slot the position becomes a permanent roster role, to be filled by renewal or replacement unless declared redundant. A responsible Minister must confidentially prepare a detailed roster reduction proposal (caseload analysis, number of positions, selection protocol, diversity impact and compensation) and share it with the Council, which provides an opinion prior to any implementation. The requirement injects evidence and consultation into roster‑down decisions.
Transitional measures: term adjustments, surveys and interim acting appointments
On commencement the Council can extend imminent expiries, must conduct user satisfaction surveys using contact data tribunals must provide (with confidentiality protections), and for two years may make short acting appointments without following the full new recruitment and term rules. These tools smooth the shift to the new regime but also give the Council short‑term appointing authority to prevent gaps.
Amends the 2009 Act to shift operational duties to the Council
This part adds Council and selection committee definitions to the 2009 Act and replaces several references to 'responsible minister' with 'Council' for duties under that Act; it also requires the chair’s concurrence for non‑chair appointments and reappointments. The amendment embeds the Council into the existing administrative law framework and alters the balance of consultation and concurrence in appointments.
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
- Tribunal users and parties — the Act creates mandatory monitoring, user satisfaction surveys and reporting which should improve access, timeliness and transparency of tribunal processes over time.
- Tribunal members — the statute builds procedural protections for non‑renewals and alleged dismissals (confidential review, independent investigator and fair hearing options), giving members clearer due‑process pathways.
- Selection committees and professional nominators — formalizing the committee role and requiring recruitment plans institutionalizes merit‑based, documented selection work and elevates their recommendations.
Who Bears the Cost
- Responsible ministers and the Lieutenant Governor in Council — they lose unilateral flexibility in filling and trimming tribunal rosters, must follow Council‑approved recruitment plans and provide detailed justifications and notices, increasing administrative work and potential delays.
- The provincial government budget — creating and staffing the Council, running surveys and supporting inquiries will require new funding and administrative capacity.
- Adjudicative tribunals — must supply detailed information, contact data and cooperate with surveys and inquiries, adding compliance obligations and confidential reporting responsibilities that consume tribunal staff time.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is balancing insulating tribunals from partisan or ad‑hoc political influence through an independent Council and formalized selection processes, against preserving government flexibility to manage tribunal capacity and respond to policy priorities; strengthening procedural protections and consultation reduces the risk of politicized removals but also constrains the executive’s ability to act quickly, which can worsen the very backlogs the bill targets.
The Act centralizes oversight but leaves appointment power formally with ministers and the Lieutenant Governor in Council, creating potential friction points. The government retains the ability to reject or ask selection committees to reconsider recommendations, but must provide written reasons; those exchanges risk creating delays and political standoffs that could slow appointments and, paradoxically, increase backlogs the Act aims to reduce.
The Council’s power to conduct inquiries and require confidential information raises procedural and privacy questions about how confidentiality, privilege and public transparency will be reconciled in practice.
Key implementation questions are unresolved in the text: the Act contemplates regulations and Council‑made rules that may materially change term exceptions, renewals and other mechanics, but it does not specify funding, staffing levels or standards for the caseload analyses that underpin roster reductions. The clause that lets this Act prevail over other Acts except where those Acts expressly say otherwise (and which itself sunsets in three years unless re‑enacted) creates a temporary legal hierarchy that could produce jurisdictional disputes between ministries, tribunals and other statutory regimes.
There's more to this law than the bill.
Codify Laws traces every connection across the legislative lifecycle.