Thank you very much for the question.
In leaving it to the judiciary to establish the principles that govern the appointment and removal of public office-holders, the hope is that as case law develops, the Governor in Council follows the law. Not every case will lead to litigation, but litigation will set the parameters that ought to govern behaviour in the future.
It's an organic process, where the courts will decide procedures required in particular circumstances. And if the executive branch of the government is acting legally, it will comply with those obligations so there won't be a need for litigation. Though many cases are time-consuming, expensive, and lead to an unsatisfactory result, the hope is that the very existence of the legal principles created by the courts will prevent abuses from arising and lead to greater compliance.
To pose a counter-hypothetical, you could imagine a very important agency like a nuclear safety watchdog and suppose there is cause for removal. In such a situation it may impede the executive branch's ability to deal with the problem quickly and satisfactorily if there were a big public hearing and a major consultative process, approval from a parliamentary committee, or a vote in the House of Commons or something like that. So it works both ways.