The Expanded Role of the Judiciary: The Supreme Court and the Charter

Federalism-E ◽  
1969 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 65-77
Author(s):  
Jeremy Cavan
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Supreme Court Of Canada ◽  
House Of Commons ◽  
Supreme Court Ruling ◽  
Stare Decisis ◽  
Canadian Federalism ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Policy Measures

The introduction of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Constitution Act, 1982 marked a decisive moment for Canadian federalism. In particular, it greatly expanded the role of the judiciary and the Supreme Court of Canada. The Charter created a legal framework of rights which changed the role of the courts in the Canadian political landscape. As a result, governments have been dissuaded from policy measures which might invoke legal action as a potential Supreme Court ruling is considered stare decisis 170 and could be potentially damaging to the confidence of the House of Commons and its popular support.[...]

scholarly journals The Impact of the Supreme Court of Canada on Intergovernmental Relations

Federalism-E ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Benjamin Goldlist
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Intergovernmental Relations ◽  
Democratic Legitimacy ◽  
Supreme Court Of Canada ◽  
Political Resources ◽  
Canadian Federalism ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Constitutional Adjudication ◽  
The Impact

The role of the Supreme Court in the practice of Canadian federalism, specifically the extent of its power and the effects of that power, is a hotly contested issue in Canadian political science. While some scholars have argued that the Court has taken on too political of a role that must be restricted, this paper develops the Court as a constitutional ‘umpire,’ whose rulings serve the important, but limited, functions of allocating political resources to incentivize negotiation, and establishing jurisdictional boundaries for said negotiations, leaving specific policy decisions to political, as opposed to legal, actors. Concerning the net outcome of the Court’s jurisprudence on the distribution of legislative powers, this paper illustrates the Court’s overall balancing approach, with grants of power to one level of government met with increases in authority to the other, in all major policy areas. Thus, ultimately shown to embrace both a limited and impartial approach to constitutional adjudication, the Court has done much to enhance its democratic legitimacy and constitutional utility.

scholarly journals Imprisonment during COVID-19 in Brazil: A Brief Review on the Prison Situation during the Pandemic

2021 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Flávio Mirza Maduro
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Status Quo ◽  
Historical Background ◽  
Court Ruling ◽  
Supreme Court Ruling ◽  
House Arrest ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Lower Courts

This mini-review aims to reflect upon the conditions of penitentiaries in Brazil during times of the pandemic; it also brings to discussion the recent decision by the Supreme Court of Brazil which allowed for certain detainees to carry out their sentences under house arrest; in addition, it aims to discuss how the judges on lower courts have decided in light of the aforementioned Supreme Court ruling. By outlining the conditions of imprisonment that can be observed in the jailing system, the authors seek to critically reflect upon the role of justice in the society during times of hardship. The authors begin by tracing a historical background in a concise way, in order to elucidate how situations of illnesses and bereavement have developed during the years. After that, the authors compare judicial rulings involving the current prison status quo. To conclude, the authors seek to add to the debate joining the voices who cry out for more assertive measures in the preservation of life and health of detainees and prison workers.

Repeat Litigators and Agenda Setting on the Supreme Court of Canada

2002 ◽  
Vol 35 (4) ◽  
pp. 811-833 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roy B. Flemming ◽  
Glen S. Krutz
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Statistical Models ◽  
Comparative Research ◽  
The United States ◽  
Supreme Court Of Canada ◽  
High Courts ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Selection Of

The expanding public policy role of high courts heightens concerns over whether societal and political inequalities affect the outcomes of litigation. However, comparative research on this question is limited. This article assesses whether status inequalities between parties and differences in the experience and resources of attorneys influence the selection of cases for judicial review in the Supreme Court of Canada. A series of statistical models reveal that governments are more likely than other parties to influence whether leave is granted but that the experience and resources of lawyers, unlike in the United States, have little impact. The decentralized, low volume and high access features of the Canadian process may explain this finding.

scholarly journals L'étanchéité de l'A.A.N.B. est-elle menacée?

2005 ◽  
Vol 18 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 383-396
Author(s):  
Jean-Charles Bonenfant
Keyword(s):  
North America ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Supreme Court Of Canada ◽  
German Federal Republic ◽  
Privy Council ◽  
Stare Decisis ◽  
British North America ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Distribution Of Powers ◽  
Canada Limited

In his opinion in John A. MacDonald, Railquip Enterprises Ltd and Vapor Canada Limited, Chief Justice Laskin commented that in the future it might be necessary to reconsider the 1937 Labour Conventions Decision which established the « watertight compartments » doctrine applicable to the implementation of treaties concluded by Canada. According to this doctrine as it was set forth by the Privy Council, the fact that Canada can enter into treaties with other countries does not mean that the Federal Parliament of Canada can legislate contrary to the distribution of powers provided for by sections 91 and 92 of the British North America Act. In his article, Professor Bonenfant recalls the criticism which the Privy Council evoked, particularly that which appeared in the June, 1937, issue of The Canadian Bar Review. If the Supreme Court of Canada wishes to revise the decision of the Privy Council, it will not be hampered by the rule of stare decisis. But, Professor Bonenfant writes, whatever the judicial solution may be, it would probably be better to follow the example of other countries, particularly the example provided by article 32 of the Constitution of the German Federal Republic, and seek a political solution. In this domain as in others, if federalism has failed in Canada, he writes that it is perhaps because the interpretation of Canada's Constitution has been left to the intellectual virtuosity of the members of the Privy Council and of the Supreme Court.

scholarly journals La Cour suprême et le rapatriement de la constitution : la victoire du compromis sur la rigueur

2005 ◽  
Vol 22 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 619-648
Author(s):  
Nicole Duplé
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
The Other ◽  
Supreme Court Of Canada ◽  
House Of Commons ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Distribution Of Powers

On September the 28th 1981, the Supreme Court of Canada made public its opinion as to the constitutionaly of the Federal government's plan to repatriate and amend the B.N.A. Act. Modifications affecting provincial powers require, according to convention, the existance of which is recognized by six of the Judges, a certain degree of provincial consensus. The federal projet, contested by eight of the ten provinces, was therefore considered unconstitutional by a majority of the Judges. The Court mentioned furthermore that the federal plan, should it become law, would impinge upon the distribution of powers set forth in the B.N.A. Act. Seven of the nine Judges so deciding declared, on the other hand, that the Senat and House of Commons' resolution pertaining to the plan of repatriation and amendement was perfectly legal and that the British Parliament was, in law, the only authorized body to bring about the changes sought by said plan.

Part VI Constitutional Theory, D The Role of Constitutional Principles in Canadian Constitutional Law, Ch.47 Constitutional Principles in the Secession Reference

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leclair Jean
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Constitutional Law ◽  
Constitutional Theory ◽  
Supreme Court Of Canada ◽  
Constitutional Order ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Over Time ◽  
Constitutional Changes ◽  
Political Compromises

In Reference Re Secession of Quebec, 1998, the Supreme Court of Canada concluded that the unwritten constitutional principles of federalism and democracy dictated that the clear repudiation of the existing constitutional order and the clear expression of the desire to pursue secession by the population of a province gave rise to a reciprocal obligation on all parties to the federation to negotiate constitutional changes to respond to that desire. To understand this astonishing decision, the author first examines how, over time, in Canada and Quebec, issues of identity(ies), constitutional law, and democracy came to be formulated in absolutist terms, making political compromises next to impossible. Only then does he analyse the Supreme Court’s decision and attempts to explain why the latter chose to decide as it did.

Intergovernmental Relations‘ Third Wheel: The Role of the Supreme Court in an Era of Collaborative Federalism

Federalism-E ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-15
Author(s):  
Allison O‘Beirne
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Intergovernmental Relations ◽  
Supreme Court Of Canada ◽  
Division Of Powers ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Way

The Supreme Court of Canada has an absolutely undeniable role in intergovernmental relations. As the country‘s only constitutionally entrenched body charged with the resolution of division-of-powers disputes, its decisions and rulings are always certain to influence the way in which governments interact with each other. Recently, however, the Supreme Court has come to be less highly regarded as a method of resolving the disputes that arise between governments [...]

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document