Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-7drxs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-16T18:15:45.575Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Origins of Judicial Review in Canada

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 November 2009

Jennifer Smith
Jennifer Smith
Affiliation:
Dalhousie University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The origins of judicial review in this country have been the subject of debate among legal scholars. This article examines the conflicting accounts provided by W. R. Lederman and B. L. Strayer, and attempts to assess them in the light of the Confederation debate, 1864–1867, and the debate surrounding passage of the Supreme Court Act in 1875. It arrives at these considerations: that the intentions of the founders are of greater significance than has hitherto been suggested; that both the founders themselves and the legislators in 1875 held conflicting expectations on the role of the Supreme Court in constitutional matters; and that this conflict has left its mark on the court. The article concludes that reflection on the origins of judicial review ought to temper the enthusiasm with which many Canadians have greeted the advent of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Résumé

Les origines de la révision judiciaire au Canada a été un sujet de débat parmi les juristes. Cet article examine les interprétations contradictoires fournies par W. R. Lederman et B. L. Strayer et essaie de les évaluer à la lumière du débat sur la Confédération, 1864–1867, et du débat entourant la mise en vigueur de la loi créant la cour Suprême en 1875. L'auteur en arrive aux conclusions suivantes: que les objectifs des fondateurs ont plus d'importance que celle qui lui a été accordée traditionnellement; qu'aussi bien les fondateurs que les législateurs de 1875, entretenaient des attentes contradictoires concemant le rôle de la cour Suprême dans les affaires constitutionnelles; et que ce conflit a laissé des traces dans la cour. En guise de conclusion l'auteur avance que la réflexion sur les origines de la révision judiciaire devrait modérer l'enthousiasme exprimé par beaucoup de canadiens face à la Charte des droits et libertés.

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique , Volume 16 , Issue 1 , March 1983 , pp. 115 - 134
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Political Science Association (l'Association canadienne de science politique) and/et la Société québécoise de science politique 1983

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

1 The BNA Act, 1867 did guarantee individual rights to denominational schools (section 93) and the use of the French and English languages in the debates, records and journals of Parliament and the legislative assembly of Quebec, and in the courts of Canada and Quebec (section 133).

2 See Dawson, R. MacGregor, The Government of Canada (4th ed.; Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1969), 74–75.Google Scholar

3 The government of Quebec refused to sign the constitutional accord of November 5, 1981.

4 Judicial Review of Legislation in Canada (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1968), 3.Google Scholar

5 Ibid., 6–7.

6 Ibid., 9.

7 Sankey, Viscount, "The History of The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council," in Lederman, W. R. (ed.), The Courts and the Canadian Constitution (Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1964), 63–65.Google Scholar

8 Strayer, , Judicial Review of Legislation in Canada, 15, 13–15.Google Scholar

9 Ibid., 21, 15–19. 10

10 "The Independence of the Judiciary," Canadian Bar Review 34 (1956), 805, 769–809.Google Scholar

11 Ibid., 1165, 1158–66.

12 Ibid., 1166–75.

13 Strayer, , Judicial Review of Legislation in Canada, 37.Google Scholar

14 Continuing Canadian Constitutional Dilemmas (Toronto: Butterworths, 1981), 192–93.Google Scholar

15 POpe, Joseph, Confederation: Being a Series of Hitherto Unpublished Documents Bearing on the British North America Act (Toronto: The Carswell Co. Ltd., 1895). 55.Google Scholar

16 Ibid., 86, 85.

17 Parliamentary 'Debates on the Subject of the Confederation of the British North American Provinces (Quebec: Parliamentary Printers, 1865).Google Scholar

18 Ibid., 574–75, 576; Strayer, , Judicial Review of Legislation in Canada, 22.Google Scholar

19 Morning Freeman (Saint John), July 5, 1866; Letter Addressed to the Earl of Carnarvon by Mr. Joseph Howe, Mr. William Annand, and Mr. Hugh McDonald, stating their Objections to the Proposed Scheme of Union of the British North American Provinces (London, 1867), 13.Google Scholar

20 Victoria, c. 11, February 23, 1875; see also Canada, House of Commons, Debates, 1875, 284–88 for Fournier's address.

21 The Supreme Court of Canada as a Bilingual and Bicultural Institution, no. 1 in the Documents of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism (Ottawa: Queen's Printer, 1969), 12.Google Scholar

22 Ibid., 6.

23 Ibid., 5.

24 See section 47, Victoria, c. 11, March 30, 1875, 76; see also discussion on the amendment in the House of Commons, Debates, 976–80.

25 House of Commons, Debates, March 16, 1875, 742–44.

26 Ibid., February 23, 1875, 288 and March 16, 1875, 755.

27 Ibid., March 16, 1875, 748–49.

28 Ibid., February 23, 1875, 289.

29 Canada, Senate Debates, April 6, 1875, 737.

30 Ibid., 716–17.

31 Ibid., April 5, 1875, 705, 715.

32 Ibid., 715.

33 Ibid., April 6, 1875, 732.

34 Strayer, , Judicial Review of Legislation in Canada, 20–21.Google Scholar

35 Ibid., 21.

36 House of Commons, Debates, March 16, 1875, 749.

37 [1912] App. Cas. 585 (P.C.).

38 Strayer, , Judicial Review of Legislation in Canada, 93–94.Google Scholar

39 Statement by the Prime Minister on the Canadian Constitution (Ottawa: Office of the Prime Minister, October 2, 1980), 5.Google Scholar

40 Notes for Remarks by Premier Allan Blakeney, Dalhousie Law Alumni Association, Halifax, October 27, 1980, 6.

41 Leading Constitutional Decisions (3rd ed.; Ottawa: Carleton University Press, 1982), 4.Google Scholar