Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T08:09:24.489Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Judicial Activism and Judicial Independence: Implications of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms for the Reference Procedure and Judicial Service on Commissions of Inquiry

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 July 2014

Kenneth M. Holland
Kenneth M. Holland
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, The University of Vermont
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Over the past five years the Supreme Court of Canada has addressed on three occasions the implications of the 1982 Charter of Rights and Freedoms for the principle of judicial independence. The justices agree that the Court's new role as guardian of constitutionally entrenched civil rights and liberties demands an expansion in its immunity from legislative and executive influence. The hoary principle of judicial independence can no longer be confined to such individual elements as security of salary and tenure but must encompass an institutional element, “reflected in [a court's] institutional or administrative relationships to the executive and legislative branches of government.” The “modern understanding of judicial independence,” according to Chief Justice Brian Dickson, recognizes that the Canadian judiciary is no longer confined to the resolution of disputes in individual cases but plays the role of “protector of the Constitution and the fundamental values embodied in it—rule of law, fundamental justice, equality, preservation of the democratic process, to name perhaps the most important.” It is not enough, therefore, to ensure the impartiality of judges in individual cases. Courts must “be completely separate in ‘authority and function’ from all other branches of government.” Accordingly, the Court ruled in a 1989 case that a royal commission of inquiry cannot compel judges involved in a matter being investigated to testify as to the reasons for their judicial decision.

Type
Comments/Commentaires
Information
Canadian Journal of Law and Society / La Revue Canadienne Droit et Société , Volume 5 , 1990 , pp. 95 - 110
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Law and Society Association 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1. Valente v. The Queen, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 673; R. v. Beauregard, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 56; Hickman and Marshall v. MacKeigan, [October 5, 1989].

2. Valente v. The Queen, (1985), Le Dain J.

3. R. v. Beauregard, (1986).

4. Hickman and Marshall v. MacKeigan, (1989), McLachlin J.

5. Hickman and Marshall v. MacKeigan, (1989).

6. See Strayer, B.L., The Canadian Constitution and the Courts (Toronto: Butterworths, 1983), Chapter 9Google Scholar.

7. Justice Bora Laskin, for instance, refused to answer Manitoba's question regarding the degree to which a provincial marketing scheme could affect trade between provinces without becoming unconstitutional. Attorney General of Manitoba v. Manitoba Egg and Poultry Association [1971] S.C.R. 689.

8. See, for example, Reference Re Offshore Mineral Rights of British Columbia, [1967] S.C.R. 792; Reference Re Legislative Authority of Parliament to Alter or Replace the Senate, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 54; Attorney General of Manitoba v. Attorney General of Canada (Patriation Reference), [September 28, 1981].

9. Attorney General of Ontario v. Attorney General of Canada (1912) AC 571, at 589.

10. Russell, Peter H., The Judiciary in Canada: The Third Branch of Government (Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson, 1987), 91Google Scholar.

11. See Reference Re Legislative Authority of Parliament to Alter or Replace the Senate, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 54.

12. Attorney General of Ontario v. Attorney General of Canada (1910) 43 S.C.R. 536.

13. Globe and Mail, 23 March 1984.

14. Attorney General of Canada v. Attorney General of Ontario (Employment and Social Insurance Act Reference), [1937] A.C. 355.

15. Attorney General of Manitoba v. Attorney General of Canada [28 September, 1981].

16. Re: Objection to a Resolution to Amend the Constitution (Quebec Veto Reference) [1982] 2 S.C.R. 793.

17. Reference Re Manitoba Language Rights [1985] 2 S.C.R. 347.

18. Reference Re Alberta Statutes [1938] 2 S.C.R. 100.

19. Russell, Peter H., Knopff, Rainer, Morton, Frederick, Federalism and the Charter: Leading Constitutional Decisions (2nd ed.; Ottawa, Carleton University Press, 1989), 145Google Scholar.

20. See Reference Re Offshore Mineral Rights of British Columbia, [1967] S.C.R. 792.

21. Landes, Ronald G., The Canadian Polity: A Comparative Introduction (2nd ed.; Scarborough, Ontario: Prentice-Hall, 1987), 201Google Scholar.

22. Attorney General of Manitoba v. Manitoba Egg and Poultry Association, [1971] S.C.R. 689.

23. Reference Re Public Service Employee Relations Act, Labour Relations Act, and Police Officers Collective Bargaining Act of Alberta, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 313.

24. Hurst, Willard, “The Functions of Courts in the United States, 1950-1980,” Law and Society Review, 15 (1981), 401–471CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

25. Gibson, Dale, “Enforcement of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms,” in Tarnopolsky, W.S. and Beaudoin, G.-A. (eds.), The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Toronto: Carswell, 1982), 453–458Google Scholar.

26. Johnston, Henry P. (ed.), The Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay (New York: Putnam's, 1890–1893), III, 486–489Google Scholar.

27. Hayburn's Case, 2 Dallas 409 (1792).

28. Ware v. Hylton, 3 Dallas 199 (1796); Clerke v. Harwood, 3 Dallas 342 (1797).

29. Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137 (1803).

30. Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 Howard 393 (1857).

31. Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 297 U.S. 288 (1936).

32. Abraham, Henry J., The Judicial Process (5th ed.; New York: Oxford University Press, 1986), 179Google Scholar.

33. Morgan, Donald G., Justice William Johnson: The First Dissenter (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1954), 123–124Google Scholar.

34. U.S. v. Carolene Products Co., 304 U.S. 144 (1938), footnote 4.

35. Abraham, , The Judicial Process, 375Google Scholar.

36. Sellar, Watson, “A Century of Commissions of Inquiry,” The Canadian Bar Review 25 (1947), 22Google Scholar.

37. Bindman, Stephen, “Major Judicial Inquiries Have Been Called or Are Ongoing Across the Country This Summer,” Southam News, 6 July 1989Google Scholar.

38. Quoted in Hodgetts, John Edwin, “The Role of Royal Commissions in Canadian Government,” in Proceedings of the Third Annual Conference of the Institute of Public Administration of Canada (1951), 352Google Scholar.

39. Quoted in Henderson, George Fletcher, Federal Royal Commissions in Canada, 1867-1966: A Checklist (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1967), xiiiGoogle Scholar.

40. Bennett, Gordon L., “An Administrator Looks Behind the Scenes of a Royal Commission,” (unpublished thesis, Department of Public Administration, Carleton University, Ottawa, 1964), 22Google Scholar.

41. Ibid., 18.

42. Hodgetts, John E., “Royal Commissions of Inquiry in Canada: A Study in Investigative Techniques,” (unpublished thesis, May 1940), 113Google Scholar.

43. Courtney, John Childs, “Canadian Royal Commisisons of Inquiry, 1946 to 1962: An Investigation of an Executive Instrument of Inquiry,” (unpublished dissertation, Department of Political Science, Duke University, 1964), 64Google Scholar.

44. Courtney, , “Canadian Royal Commissions of Inquiry,” 129Google Scholar.

45. Brady, Alexander, “Royal Commissions in the Dominions: A Note on Current Political Practice,” University of Toronto Quarterly 8 (1939), 285CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

46. Callard, K.B., “Commissions of Inquiry in Canada, 1867-1949,” (unpublished report, 1950), 31Google Scholar.

47. Quoted in Courtney, , “Canadian Royal Commissions of Inquiry,” 56Google Scholar.

48. Quoted in Hodgetts, , “Royal Commissions of Inquiry in Canada,” 88Google Scholar.

49. Courtney, , “Canadian Royal Commissions of Inquiry,” 57–58Google Scholar.

50. Dawson, , Government of Canada (2nd ed.; Toronto, 1954), 482Google Scholar.

51. Quoted in Sellar, , “A Century of Commissions of Inquiry,” 10Google Scholar.

52. Hodgetts, , “Royal Commissions of Inquiry in Canada,” 91Google Scholar.

53. Sellar, , “A Century of Commissions of Inquiry,” 10Google Scholar.

54. Clokie, Hugh McDowell and Robinson, J. William, Royal Commissions of Inquiry: The Significance of Investigations in British Politics (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1937), 10Google Scholar.

55. Russell, Peter, quoted by Bindman, , “Major Judicial Inquiries.”Google Scholar

56. The facts in the above paragraph are drawn from Mason, Alpheus Thomas, “Extra-Judicial Work for Judges: The Views of Chief Justice Stone,” Harvard Law Review 67 (1953), 193–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

57. Morton, F.L., Charter Database Project, The University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, 1990Google Scholar.

58. Russell, Peter H., “Canada's Charter: A Political Report,” Public Law (Autumn, 1988), 388Google Scholar.

59. Quoted in ibid., 388.