All judges should travel but it is not necessary that all travel eight weeks each year. We consider that those judges who express a preference for less travel should be assigned a rota with a shorter travel schedule. The determination of how much shorter must again be largely arbitrary. Based on what we regard will serve the best balance of the objectives, we would propose that, at least for now, judges should be given the choice of a six or eight week travel rota. Further, we consider that all scheduled travel need not necessarily be confined to two-week blocks.
Some judges find two weeks on the road at a time quite difficult.
While two weeks are desirable for trial coordinators much of the time, there are many instances where one week at a time would cause no disruption particularly in locations where there are resident judges. Indeed, the 1998 rota already provides for one-week assignments to some extent. There should then be some preference with respect to scheduled travel built into the rota, but that is not to say that the informal switching of assignments should not continue as a means of permitting judges to alter their rotas once they have been set. The practice that has prevailed since merger of confining the rota for judges who do not reside in the Lower Mainland to travelling only to Vancouver should be discontinued. They should now be sitting in other locations, particularly in the geographic area where they reside, and we consider each of them should have a choice about the amount of their travel time they would like to sit in Vancouver subject to the court's interest in preserving some minimum in that regard.