Judicial independence is entrenched within Canadian judicial systems, ensuring independence in all courts. This includes security of tenure, financial security and administrative independence. The structure of this critical analysis will begin by summarizing the broader context of judicial independence, and then delve into one particular aspect of judicial independence: judicial financial security. The 1997 Judges Remuneration Reference has a fundamental influence on the salaries of Canadian judges and how they are determined. As with any important issue, there are both critics and supporters of the reference. Proponents recognize the superficial success that the reference aimed to achieve, while critics dig deeper into the reference to uncover gaps and concerns of more specific reference concepts. The preamble to the Constitution Act of 1867 states that Canada shall have “a Constitution similar in principle to that of the United Kingdom”; with this we add the unwritten rule and the founding principles of the independence of the judiciary as a tradition of the United Kingdom (Ref re Remuneration of Judges of the Prov. Court of PEI; Ref re Independence and Impairality of Judges of the Prov. Court of PEI, 1997). Following the Constitution of the United Kingdom, Canada also expresses the independence of the judiciary. The Canadian judiciary must be impartial on the basis of facts, without any restriction, pressure, influence, threat or interference to ensure that judicial proceedings are conducted fairly (Fundamental Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary, 2012). In order to ensure impartiality and independence, the judiciary is guaranteed security of tenure, financial security and administrative independence (Riddell, 2013... half of the document... the conflict of rejecting a recommendation results further litigation is added to the Canadian courts, which are already filled with much more urgent and serious issues. The Remuneration Reference was developed in part to eliminate negotiation between judges and the government, but in the event of rejection of the recommendations, there is. is still a dispute among judges. Biases and self-interest that can still be enforced through remuneration reference committees have tainted the integrity of the judiciary and financial security, motivated solely by greed. The loophole of rejecting the recommendations of the Compensation Commission is the biggest pitfall of the Judges' Remuneration Reference 1997..