Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T06:31:01.907Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Charter in the Supreme Court of Canada: The Importance of Which Judges Hear an Appeal*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 November 2009

Andrew D. Heard
Andrew D. Heard
Affiliation:
Dalhousie University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A traditional focus on the collective, institutional operation of the Supreme Court of Canada has obscured the practical impact on the Charter of Rights of the personal views held by the individual members of the Court. A study of all the Charter cases decided by the Supreme Court from 1983 to 1989 reveals a profound divergence of opinions within the Court. The differences are seen not only in each judge's overall support for Charter claims but also in the patterns of agreement between bilateral pairings of judges who have heard the same cases. The use of subsets of judges to sit on panels to hear Charter cases has meant that both the outcome of Charter cases and the content of our rights have depended to a large extent upon which judges happened to sit on the panels that heard the cases.

Résumé

Une tradition de recherche centrée sur le fonctionnement collectif et institutionnel de la Cour suprême du Canada a gardé dans l'ombre l'impact des opinions personnelles de chaque membre de la Cour sur la Charte de droits et libertés. Or, l'analyse de tous les jugements rendus sur la Charte par la Cour suprême entre 1983 et 1989 révèle de profondes divergences d'opinion entre les juges. Ces divergences sont manifestes tant du point de vue de l'attitude générale de chaque juge envers les revendications appuyées sur la Charte, que par rapport aux prises de position des juges ayant à statuer sur une même cause, Étant donné la pratique de la Cour de siéger en sous-groupe, tant la résolution des causes afférant à la Charte que la définition de nos droits ont été affectées dans une large mesure par l'identité des juges qui ont pris part à ces décisions.

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique , Volume 24 , Issue 2 , June 1991 , pp. 289 - 307
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Political Science Association (l'Association canadienne de science politique) and/et la Société québécoise de science politique 1991

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 See Baar, Carl and Baar, Ellen, “Diagnostic Adjudication in Appellate Courts: The Supreme Court of Canada and the Charter of Rights,” Osgoode Hall Law Journal 27 (1989), 1–25Google Scholar, and Petter, Andrew, “Immaculate Deception: The Charter's Hidden Agenda,” The Advocate 45 (1987), 857–866.

2 See Gold, Marc, “Of Rights and Roles: The Supreme Court and the Charter,” University of British Columbia Law Review 23 (1989), 507–530Google Scholar; Greene, Ian, The Charter of Rights (Toronto: Lorimer, 1989), 66–69Google Scholar; Morton, F. L., Russell, Peter H. and Withey, Michael J., “The Supreme Court's First 100 Charter of Rights Decisions: A Quantitative Analysis,”paper presented to the annual meeting of the Canadian Political Science Association,Victoria,1990Google Scholar; and Beatty, David, Talking Heads and the Supremes: The Canadian Production of the Constitutional Review (Toronto: Carswell, 1990)Google Scholar.

3 Most studies of judicial interpretations of the Charter have tended to emphasize the treatment of the Charter by particular courts as single institutions, for example, Monahan, Patrick, Politics and the Constitution (Toronto: Carswell, 1987)Google Scholar; Morton, F. L. and Withey, Michael J., “Charting the Charter, 1982–1985: A Statistical Analysis,” Canadian Human Rights Yearbook 4 (1987), 65Google Scholar; and Sharpe, Robert J., “The Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Supreme Court of Canada: The First Four Years,” Public Law (Spring 1987), 48–61Google Scholar.

4 For a description of the manner in which the judges of the Supreme Court reach their decisions see Wilson, Bertha, “Decision-Making in the Supreme Court of Canada,” University of Toronto Law Journal 36 (1986), 227–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5 Cardozo, Benjamin N., The Nature of the Judicial Process (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1949), 174–175Google Scholar. While this subject is widely discussed, two examples of different approaches to this matter can be found in Conklin, William E., Images of a Constitution (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1989)Google Scholar and Unger, Roberto Mangabeira, Critical Legal Studies Movement (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1983)Google Scholar.

6 See McLachlin, Beverly, “The Charter of Rights and Freedoms: A Judicial Perspective,” University of British Columbia Law Review 23 (1989), 589–590Google Scholar.

7 Gold, Marc, “The Mask of Objectivity: Politics and Rhetoric in the Supreme Court of Canada,” Supreme Court Law Review 7 (1985), 455–504Google Scholar.

8 For example, Schubert, Glendon A., The Judicial Mind: Attitudes and Ideologies of the Supreme Court Justices, 1946–1963 (Evanston, III.: Northwestern University Press, 1965)Google Scholar; Schubert, Glendon A., The Judicial Mind Revisited: Psychometric Analysis of Supreme Court Ideology (New York: Oxford University Press, 1984)Google Scholar; Rohde, David W. and Spaeth, Harold J., Supreme Court Decision Making (San Francisco: W. H. Freeman, 1976)Google Scholar; Segal, Jeffrey A. and Cover, Albert D., “Ideological Values and the Votes of the US Supreme Court Justices,” Political Behavior 10 (1988), 557–565Google Scholar; Stidman, Robert, “Supportfor Labor and Economic Regulation among Reagan and Carter Appointees to the Federal Courts,” Social Science Journal 26 (1989), 433–443Google Scholar; and Brace, Paul and Hall, Melinda Gann, “Neo-Institutionalism and Dissent in State Supreme Courts,” Journal of Politics 52 (1990), 54–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

9 See Schubert, Glendon and Danelski, Daniel J., eds., Comparative Judicial Behavior (New York: Oxford University Press, 1969)Google Scholar.

10 Schubert, Glendon A., “Political Ideology on the High Court,” Politics 3 (1968), 21–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Blackshield, A. R., “Quantitative Analysis: The High Court of Australia, 1964–1969,” Lawasia 3 (1972), 1–66Google Scholar.

11 Robertson, David, “Judicial Ideology in the House of Lords: A Jurimetric Analysis,” British Journal of Political Science 12 (1982), 1–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

12 Fouts, Donald E., “Policy-Making in the Supreme Court of Canada, 1950–1960,” in Schubert, and Danelski, , eds., Comparative Judicial Behavior, 257–291Google Scholar.

13 Peck, Sidney R., “A Scalogram Analysis of the Supreme Court of Canada, 1958–1967,” in Schubert, and Danelski, , eds., Comparative Judicial Behavior, 293–334Google Scholar.

14 Russell, Peter H., The Supreme Court of Canada as a Bilingual and Bicultural Institution, Vol. 1 of the Documents of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism (Ottawa: Queen's Printer, 1969)Google Scholar.

15 Tate, C. Neal and Sittiwong, Panu, “Decision Making in the Supreme Court: Extending the Personal Attributes Model Across Nations,” Journal of Politics 51 (1989), 900–916CrossRefGoogle Scholar. This article built on an earlier work analyzing American judges: Tate, C. Neal, “Personal Attribute Models of the Voting Behavior of U.S. Supreme Court Justices: Liberalism in Civil Liberties and Economics Decisions, 1946–1978,” American Political Science Review 75 (1981), 355–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

16 Tate and Sittiwong concluded that the most liberal judges were likely to be Catholic, non-Quebec, Liberal appointees who had prior extensive judicial experience before appointment to the Supreme Court of Canada (Ibid., 911). Fouts found that only the four judges from Quebec fit within the “authoritarian” policy position in the model of judicial policy positions he constructed (Fouts, “The Supreme Court of Canada,” 278–79). Russell's research also revealed different patterns of behaviour for judges from Quebec than for those appointed from outside that province (Russell, “The Supreme Court of Canada as a Bilingual and Bicultural Institution,” 213–20).

17 Morton, Russell and Withey, “The Supreme Court's First 100 Charter of Rights Decisions.”

18 Pentney, William F., “Interpreting the Charter: General Principles,” in Beaudoin, Gerald-A. and Ratushny, Ed, eds., The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (2nd ed.; Toronto: Carswell, 1989), 21–63Google Scholar.

19 R. v. Morgentaler, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 30.

20 Re Public Service Employees Relations Act (Aha.), [1987] 1 S.C.R. 313, and Public Service Alliance of Canada v. The Queen, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 424; and RWDSU v. Saskatchewan, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 460.

21 For this test see R.v. Oakes, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 103 at 135–40, and R. v. Edwards Books, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 713, at 768.

22 Edmonton Journal v. Alberta (A.G.) et al., [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1322.

23 For example, United States of America v. Cotroni; United States of America v. El Zein, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 149.

24 Estey dissented in R. v. Wigglesworth, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 541, butsided with the rest of the panel in Burnham v. Metropolitan Toronto Police, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 572; Trumbley and Pugh v. Metropolitan Toronto Police, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 577; and Trimm v. Durham Regional Police, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 582.

25 [1983] 1 S.C.R. 43.

26 [1984] 1 S.C.R. 357.

27 For instance, R. v. Simmons, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 495 is not counted as a successful case. Even though the Court decided that the claimant's rights had been infringed by a customs search in a manner that could not be saved under s. 1, the evidence gained was not excluded under s.24(2).

28 Tate and Sittiwong, “Decision Making in the Canadian Supreme Court,” 902.

29 All the data referring to decisions and opinions include oral decisions delivered from the bench that have been reported in the Supreme Court Reports.

30 Singh et al. v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 177.

31 R. v. Morgentaler, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 30.

32 However, several of these were short oral decisions.

33 Chi square significance = 0.024.

34 Re Public Employee Relations Act (Alta.), [1987] 1 S.C.R. 313; Public Service Alliance of Canada v. The Queen, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 424; and RWDSU v. Saskatchewan, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 460.

35 See Russell, Peter H., The Judiciary in Canada: The Third Branch of Government (Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson, 1987), 349–350Google Scholar.

36 McWhinney, Edward, “Judicial Concurrences and Dissents: A Comparative View of Opinion-writing in Final Appellate Tribunals,” Canadian Bar Review 31 (1953), 595–625Google Scholar.

37 Petter, Andrew and Hutchinson, Allan C., “Rights in Conflict: The Dilemma of Charter Legitimacy,” University of British Columbia Law Review 23 (1989), 531–548Google Scholar.