Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wzw2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-01T06:03:37.850Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Exploring Complex Judicial–Executive Interaction: Federal Government Concessions in Charter of Rights Cases

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 December 2010

Matthew A. Hennigar
Matthew A. Hennigar*
Affiliation:
Brock University
*
Matthew A. Hennigar, Department of Political Science, Brock University, 500 Glenridge Avenue, St. Catharines, ON L2S 3A1, mhennigar@brocku.ca
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Abstract. This article analyzes the federal government's concessions before the Supreme Court of Canada that its own laws are unconstitutional under the Charter of Rights, marking the first time that concessions have been analyzed empirically in Canada. Using data from 1984–2004, the author finds that full concessions of unconstitutionality are exceptionally rare but that partial concessions are not uncommon. There is weak support for the hypothesis that governments are more willing to concede laws passed by previous governments of a different party, but, on the whole, the federal government appears committed to defending its laws in court. The author explores the implications of this for the relationship between the judiciary and the executive, including judicial activism, Charter dialogue and government use of the courts to advance policy goals.

Résumé. Cet article analyse les concessions du gouvernement fédéral devant la Cour suprême du Canada que ses propres lois violent la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés. Il s'agit, en fait, de la première analyse empirique de ces concessions au Canada. S'appuyant sur des données des années 1984 à 2004, l'auteur constate que les concessions complètes d'inconstitutionnalité sont exceptionnellement rares, mais que les concessions partielles ne sont pas inhabituelles. On donne peu d'appui à l'hypothèse que les gouvernements sont plus disposés à concéder les lois passées par des gouvernements précédents représentant un autre parti, et, dans l'ensemble, le gouvernement fédéral semble être engagé à défendre ses lois devant les cours. L'auteur explore l'incidence de cette situation sur les relations entre le pouvoir judiciaire et le pouvoir exécutif, abordant, entre autres, la question de l'activisme judiciaire, du dialogue sur la Charte et de l'utilisation des tribunaux par le gouvernement pour promouvoir certaines politiques.

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique , Volume 43 , Issue 4 , December 2010 , pp. 821 - 842
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Political Science Association 2010

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

Attorney General of Canada v. Canadian National Transportation, Ltd., [1983] 2 S.C.R. 206.Google Scholar
Bickel, Alexander M. 1962. The Least Dangerous Branch: The Supreme Court at the Bar of Politics. New York: Bobbs-Merrill.Google Scholar
Brodie, Ian. 2002. Friends of the Court: The Privileging of Interest Group Litigants in Canada. Albany: State University of New York Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brunet, Mélanie. 2000. Out of the Shadows: The Civil Law Tradition in the Department of Justice Canada, 1868–2000. Ottawa: Department of Justice Canada.Google Scholar
Canadian Council of Churches (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1992] 1 S.C.R. 236.Google Scholar
Canadian Egg Marketing Agency v. Richardson, [1998] 3 S.C.R. 157.Google Scholar
Chaoulli v. Quebec (Attorney General), [2005] 1 S.C.R. 791.Google Scholar
Department of Justice Canada. 2005. Federal Prosecution Service Deskbook. Ottawa: Department of Justice. http://canada.justice.gc.ca/eng/dept-min/pub/fps-sfp/fpd.Google Scholar
Edwards, John Ll. J. 1987. “The Attorney General and the Charter of Rights.” In Charter Litigation, ed. Sharpe, Robert J.. Toronto: Butterworths.Google Scholar
Epp, Charles. 1998. The Rights Revolution: Lawyers, Activists and Supreme Courts in Comparative Perspective. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finkel, Jodi S. 2008. Judicial Reform as Political Insurance: Argentina, Peru, and Mexico in the 1990s. Notre Dame IN.: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
Freiman, Mark. 2002. “Convergence of Law and Policy and the Role of the Attorney General.” Supreme Court Law Review (2d) 16: 335–41.Google Scholar
Ginsburg, Tom. 2003. Judicial Review in New Democracies: Constitutional Courts in Asian Cases. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graber, Mark. 1993. “The Nonmajoritarian Difficulty: Legislative Deference to the Judiciary.” Studies in American Political Development 7: 35–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graber, Mark. 2005. “Constructing Judicial Review.” Annual Review of Political Science 8:425–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haig v. Chief Electoral Officer of Canada [1993] 2 S.C.R. 995.Google Scholar
Hall, Peter and Taylor, Rosemary. 1996. “Political Science and the Three New Institutionalisms: Review Article.” Political Studies 44: 936–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hein, Gregory. 2000. “Interest Group Litigation and Canadian Democracy.” In Judicial Power and Canadian Democracy, ed. Howe, Paul and Russell, Peter H.. Montreal-Kingston: McGill-Queen's University Press.Google Scholar
Hennigar, Matthew A. 2002. “Players and the Process: Charter Litigation and the Federal Government.” Windsor Yearbook of Access to Justice 21: 91–109Google Scholar
Hennigar, Matthew A. 2004. “Expanding the ‘Dialogue’ Debate: Canadian Federal Government Responses to Lower Court Charter Decisions.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 37: 3–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hennigar, Matthew A. 2007. “Why Does the Federal Government Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada in Charter of Rights cases? A Strategic Explanation.” Law & Society Review 41 (1): 225–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hennigar, Matthew A. 2008. “Conceptualizing Attorney General Conduct in Charter Litigation: From Independence to Central Agency.” Canadian Public Administration 51 (2): 193–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hennigar, Matthew A. 2009. “Reference re Same-Sex Marriage: Making Sense of the Government's Litigation Strategy.” In Contested Constitutionalism, ed. Kelly, James and Manfredi, Christopher. Vancouver: UBC Press.Google Scholar
Hiebert, Janet L. 1996. Limiting Rights: The Dilemma of Judicial Review. Montreal-Kingston: McGill-Queen's University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hiebert, Janet L. 2002. Charter Conflicts: What is Parliament's Role? Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirschl, Ran. 2004. Towards Juristocracy: The Origins and the Consequences of the New Constitutionalism. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Hirschl, Ran. 2008. “The Judicialization of Mega-Politics and the Rise of Political Courts.” Annual Review of Political Science 11: 93–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hogg, Peter W. and Bushell, Allison A.. 1997. “The Charter Dialogue between Courts and Legislatures.” Osgoode Hall Law Journal 35: 75–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hogg, Peter W., Thornton, Allison A. Bushell and Wright, Wade K.. 2007. “Charter Dialogue Revisited—Or ‘Much Ado about Metaphors.’” Osgoode Hall Law Journal 45: 193–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunter et al. v. Southam Inc., [1984] 2 S.C.R. 145.Google Scholar
Huscroft, Grant. 1995. “The Attorney General and Charter Challenges to Legislation: Advocate or Adjudicator?” National Journal of Constitutional Law 5: 125–62.Google Scholar
Huscroft, Grant. 2007. “Constitutionalism from the Top Down.” Osgoode Hall Law Journal 45: 91–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huscroft, Grant. 2009. “Reconciling Duty and Discretion: the Attorney General in the Charter Era.” Queen's Law Journal (forthcoming). Available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1326706.Google Scholar
Immergut, Ellen. 1998. “The Theoretical Core of the New Institutionalism.” Politics & Society 26: 5–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Quebec (Attorney General), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 927Google Scholar
Jai, Julie. 1997/98. “Policy, Politics and Law: Changing Relationships in Light of the Charter.” National Journal of Constitutional Law 9: 1–25.Google Scholar
Kelly, James B. 2005. Governing with the Charter: Legislative and Judicial Activism and Framers' Intent. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.Google Scholar
Law Society of Upper Canada v. Skapinker, [1984] 1 S.C.R. 357.Google Scholar
Lindgren, April and Naumetz, Tim. 2003. “Ontario Defies Gun Registry Law: 5 Provinces Now Refuse to ‘Persecute’ Gun Owners.” The Ottawa Citizen (June 4): A1.Google Scholar
M. v. H., [1996] 27 O.R. (3d) 593 (Ont. Gen. Div.).Google Scholar
M. v. H., [1999] S.C.R.Google Scholar
MacNair, Deborah. 2001. “The Role of the Federal Public Sector Lawyer: From Polyester to Silk.” University of New Brunswick Law Journal 50: 125–65.Google Scholar
Manfredi, Christopher P. and Kelly, James B.. 1999. “Six Degrees of Dialogue: A Response to Hogg and Bushell.” Osgoode Hall Law Journal 37: 513–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McAllister, Debra M. 2002. “The Attorney General's Role as Guardian of the Public Interest in Charter Litigation.” Windsor Yearbook of Access to Justice 21: 47–90.Google Scholar
Moon, Richard. 2002. “Justified Limits on Free Expression: The Collapse of the General Approach to Limits on Charter Rights.” Osgoode Hall Law Journal 40: 337–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morton, F.L. and Knopff, Rainer. 2000. The Charter Revolution and the Court Party. Peterborough ON: Broadview Press.Google Scholar
Prostitution Reference (Reference re ss. 193 and 195.1(1)(c) of the Criminal Code (Man.)), [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1123.Google Scholar
Ramsden v. Peterborough, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 1084.Google Scholar
Reference re Same-Sex Marriage, [2004] 3 S.C.R. 698.Google Scholar
R. v. Clay, [2003] 3 S.C.R. 735.Google Scholar
R. v. Hamill, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 301.Google Scholar
R. v. Hauser, [1979] 1 S.C.R. 984.Google Scholar
R. v. Johnson [2003] 2 S.C.R 357.Google Scholar
R. v. Keegstra, [1996] 1 S.C.R. 458.Google Scholar
R. v. Laba, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 965.Google Scholar
R. v. Malmo-Levine; R. v. Caine, [2003] 3 S.C.R. 571.Google Scholar
R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R 103.Google Scholar
R. v. Osolin, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 313.Google Scholar
R. v. Ruzic, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 687.Google Scholar
R. v. Sharpe, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 45.Google Scholar
R. v. Simmons, [1988] 2 S.C.R 495.Google Scholar
R. v. Wetmore, [1983] 2 S.C.R. 284.Google Scholar
R. v. Yorke, [1993] 3 S.C.R. 647.Google Scholar
R. v. Zundel, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 731.Google Scholar
RJR-MacDonald Inc. v. Canada, [1995] 3 S.C.R. 199.Google Scholar
Roach, Kent. 2000. “The Attorney General and the Charter Revisited.” University of Toronto Law Journal 50: 1–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roach, Kent. 2001. The Supreme Court on Trial: Judicial Activism or Democratic Dialogue. Toronto: Irwin Law.Google Scholar
Roach, Kent. 2006. “Not Just the Government's Lawyer: The Attorney General as Defender of the Rule of Law.” Queen's Law Journal 31: 598–643.Google Scholar
Russell, Peter H., Knopff, Rainer and Morton, F.L.. 1990. Federalism and the Charter: Leading Constitutional Decisions. Ottawa: Carleton University Press.Google Scholar
Sauvé v. Canada (Attorney General), [1993] 2 S.C.R. 438.Google Scholar
Sauvé v. Canada (Chief Electoral Officer), [2002] 3 S.C.R. 519.Google Scholar
Schachter v. Canada, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 679.Google Scholar
Scott, Ian. 1989. “Law, Policy, and the Role of the Attorney General: Constancy and Change in the 1980s.” University of Toronto Law Journal 39(2): 109–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tushnet, Mark. 1999. Taking the Constitution Away from the Courts. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
United Nurses of Alberta v. Alberta (Attorney General), [1992] 1 S.C.R. 901.Google Scholar
White, Ottenheimer & Baker v. Canada (Attorney General); Lavellee, Rackel & Heinz v. Canada (Attorney General); R. v. Fink, [2002] 3 S.C.R. 209.Google Scholar
Whittington, Keith E. 2005. “‘Interpose Your Friendly Hand’: Political Supports for the Exercise of Judicial Review by the United States Supreme Court.” American Political Science Review 99(4): 583–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar