Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T05:52:48.141Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Judicial Discretion as Political Choice: The Supreme Court of Canada's Costs Awarding Power

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 August 2018

Emmanuelle Richez  and
Erin Crandall
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article analyzes an important discretionary power of the Supreme Court of Canada, the ability to award costs. With the use of an original data set, we explore trends in costs awarding in public interest litigation at the Supreme Court from 1970 to 2012. Our findings suggest that, over time, the Court has tended to favour nongovernment parties over government parties where the former are less likely to pay costs when they lose and more likely to receive costs when they win. In these cases, costs orders were more likely to benefit public interest litigants, such as nongovernmental organizations, than individual litigants and businesses. Together, these findings suggest a sensitivity to access to justice concerns when making costs orders, though some may argue that this sensitivity by the Court does not extend far enough.

Résumé

Cet article analyse l'important pouvoir discrétionnaire qu'a la Cour suprême du Canada d'allouer des dépens. En nous basant sur des données que nous avons réunies, nous étudions la répartition de l'allocation des dépens dans les causes d'intérêt public de 1970 à 2012 et les tendances qui s'en dégagent. Nous constatons qu'au fil du temps, la Cour a eu tendance à favoriser les parties non-gouvernementales plutôt que les parties gouvernementales, les premières payant moins souvent les dépens quand elles perdent et recevant plus souvent les dépens quand elles gagnent. Dans ces causes, l'allocation des dépens profitait plus souvent aux organisations non-gouvernementales qu'aux simples individus ou aux entreprises commerciales. Ensemble, ces résultats suggèrent que la Cour se soucie de la question de l'accès à la justice lorsqu'elle alloue les dépens. Certains soutiennent cependant que cette préoccupation ne va pas assez loin.

Type
Research Article/Étude originale
Information
Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique , Volume 51 , Issue 4 , December 2018 , pp. 929 - 947
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Political Science Association (l'Association canadienne de science politique) and/et la Société québécoise de science politique 2018 

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.)

Footnotes

Acknowledgements: The authors thank Christopher P. Manfredi, Emmett Macfarlane, and Kate Puddister, as well as the journal’s anonymous reviewers and editors for their insightful comments and feedback. Both authors contributed equally to this article.

References

Works Cited

Arvay, Joseph J. and Latimer, Alison. 2011. “Cost Strategies for Litigants: The Significance of R. v. Caron.” Supreme Court Law Review 54: 427–49.Google Scholar
Berger, Benjamin L. 2002. “Putting a Price on Dignity: The Problem of Costs in Charter Litigation.” Advocates' Quarterly 36: 235–51.Google Scholar
Brodie, Ian. 2002. Friends of the Court: The Privileging of Interest Group Litigants in Canada (SUNY series in American constitutionalism). Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Campbell, Enid. 1983. “Award of Costs on Application for Judicial Review.” Sydney Law Review 10: 20–38.Google Scholar
Cromwell, Thomas A. 2012. “Access to Justice: Towards a Collaborative and Strategic Approach.” University of New Brunswick Law Journal 63: 38–48.Google Scholar
Emblem, Norm, Basmadjian, Ara. 2016. “Impecuniosity or Hardship as a Factor in the Award of Costs: Towards a Coherent Framework.” Advocates’ Quarterly 45: 420–35.Google Scholar
Epp, Charles R. 1998. The Rights Revolution: Lawyers, Activists, and Supreme Courts in Comparative Perspective. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Fenrick, Michael. 2007. “Habermas, Legal Legitimacy, and Creative Cost Awards in Recent Canadian Jurisprudence.” Dalhousie Law Journal 30: 165–206.Google Scholar
Flemming, Roy B. 2004. Tournament of Appeals: Granting Judicial Review in Canada. Vancouver: UBC Press.Google Scholar
Friedlander, Lara. 1994. “Towards a Cost Awards Policy in Civil Charter Litigation.” Windsor Review Legal & Social Issues 5: 41–82.Google Scholar
Friedlander, Lara. 1995. “Costs and the Public Interest Litigant.” McGill Law Journal 40: 55–102.Google Scholar
Graham, Jennifer. 2013. “Report Says Access to Justice in Canada ‘Abysmal,’ Calls for Change by 2030.” The Globe and Mail (Toronto). 18 August.Google Scholar
Hausegger, Lori and Haynie, Stacia. 2003. “Judicial Decisionmaking and the Use of Panels in the Canadian Supreme Court and the South African Appellate Division.” Law & Society Review 37: 635–57.Google Scholar
Hausegger, Lori, Riddell, Troy and Hennigar, Matthew. 2013. “Does Patronage Matter? Connecting Influences on Judicial Appointments with Judicial Decision Making.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 46: 665–90.Google Scholar
Haynie, Stacia L., Sheehan, Reginald S., Songer, Donald R. and Tate, C. Neal. 2007. High Courts Judicial Database. University of South Carolina Judicial Research Initiative.Google Scholar
Hodges, Christopher J. S., Vogenauer, Sefan, Tulibacka, Magdalena and Cameron, Camille. 2010. The Costs and Funding of Civil Litigation: A Comparative Perspective. Oxford; Portland, OR: Hart Pub.Google Scholar
Johnson, Susan W. and Songer, Donald R.. 2009. “Judge Gender and the Voting Behavior of Justices on Two North American Supreme Courts.” Justice Systems Journal 30: 265–79.Google Scholar
Kelly, James B. 2005. Governing with the Charter: Legislative and Judicial Activism and Framers' Intent. Vancouver: UBC Press.Google Scholar
Knutsen, Erik S. 2010. “The Costs of Costs: The Unfortunate Deterrence of Everyday Civil Litigation in Canada.” Queen's Law Journal 36: 113–60.Google Scholar
Lexum, . 2015. Judgments of the Supreme Court of Canada. (March 10, 2015).Google Scholar
MacDonnell, Vanessa. 2016. “A Theory of Quasi-Constitutional Legislation.” Osgoode Hall Law Journal 53: 508–39.Google Scholar
Macfarlane, Emmett. 2013. Governing from the Bench: The Supreme Court of Canada and the Judicial Role. Vancouver: UBC Press.Google Scholar
Makin, Kirk. 2011. “Access to Justice Becoming a Privilege of the Rich, Judge Warns.” The Globe and Mail (Toronto), February 10.Google Scholar
Manfredi, Christopher P. 2002. “Strategic Behaviour and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.” In The Myth of the Sacred: The Charter, the Courts, and the Politics of the Constitution in Canada, ed. James, Patrick, Abelson, Donald E. and Lusztig, Michael. Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press.Google Scholar
Manfredi, Christopher P. 2004. Feminist Activism in the Supreme Court: Legal Mobilization and the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund. Vancouver: UBC Press.Google Scholar
Mayeda, Graham. 2011. “Access to Justice: The Impact of Injunctions, Contempt of Court Proceedings, and Costs Awards on Environmental Protestors and Aboriginal Peoples.” McGill International Journal of Sustainable Development Law and Policy 6: 143–76.Google Scholar
McCool, Carolyn. 1996. “Costs in Public Interest Litigation: A Comment on Professor Tollefson's Article, When the Public Interest Loses: The Liability of Public Interest Litigants for Adverse Cost Awards.” University of British Columbia Law Review 30: 309–17.Google Scholar
McLachlin, Beverley. 2007. “Justice in our Courts and the Challenges We Face.” The Empire Club of Canada Addresses: 325–35.Google Scholar
Morton, F. L. and Knopff, Rainer. 2000. The Charter Revolution and the Court Party. Peterborough: Broadview Press.Google Scholar
Orkin, Mark M. 2010. The Law of Costs (2nd edn.). Toronto: Canada Law Book ltd.Google Scholar
Ostberg, C. L. and Wetstein, Matthew E.. 2007. Attitudinal Decision Making in the Supreme Court of Canada. Vancouver: UBC Press.Google Scholar
Radmilovic, Vuk. 2010. “Strategic Legitimacy Cultivation at the Supreme Court of Canada: Quebec Secession Reference and Beyond.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 43: 843–69.Google Scholar
Radmilovic, Vuk. 2013. “Governmental Interventions and Judicial Decision Making: The Supreme Court of Canada in the Age of the Charter.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 46: 323–44.Google Scholar
Roach, Kent. 1987. “Section 24 (1) of the Charter: Strategy and Structure.” Criminal Law Quarterly 29: 222–72.Google Scholar
Roach, Kent. 2013. “Enforcement of the Charter—Subsections 52(1) and 24(1).” Supreme Court Law Review (2nd) 62: 473–537.Google Scholar
Songer, Donald R. 2008. The Transformation of the Supreme Court of Canada: An Empirical Examination. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Songer, Donald R., Johnson, Susan W., Ostberg, C.L. and Wetstein, Matthew E.. 2012. Law, Ideology, and Collegiality: Judicial Behaviour in the Supreme Court of Canada. Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press.Google Scholar
Tate, C. Neal and Sittiwong, Panu. 1989. “Decision Making in the Canadian Supreme Court: Extending the Personal Attributes Model across Nations.” The Journal of Politics 51: 900–16.Google Scholar
The Canadian Press. 2016. “Court Challenge Over Senate Vacancies Dismissed as ‘Moot’.” The Globe and Mail, October 13, 30–33. (July 7, 2017).Google Scholar
Tollefson, Chris. 1995. “When the ‘Public Interest’ Loses: The Liability of Public Interest Litigants for Adverse Costs Award.” University of British Columbia Law Review 29: 303–40.Google Scholar
Tollefson, Chris. 2002. “Advancing an Agenda—A Reflection on Recent Developments in Canadian Public Interest Environmental Litigation.” University of New Brunswick Law Journal 51: 175–98.Google Scholar
Tollefson, Chris. 2006. “Costs and the Public Interest Litigant: Okanagan Indian Band and Beyond.” Canadian Journal of Administrative Law & Practice 19: 39–61.Google Scholar
Tollefson, Chris. 2008–2009. “Costs in Public Interest Litigation: Recent Developments and Future Directions.” The Advocates's Quarterly 35: 181–201.Google Scholar
Tollefson, Chris. 2011. “Costs in Public Interest Litigation Revisited.” The Advocates’ Quarterly 39: 197–221.Google Scholar
Tollefson, Chris, Gilliland, Darlene, and DeMarco, Jerry. 2004. “Towards a Cost Jurisprudence in Public Interest Litigation” Canadian Bar Review 83: 473–514.Google Scholar

Cases Cited

Court of Appeal of British Columbia. Skidmore v. Blackmore, [1995] 122 D.L.R. (4th) 330.Google Scholar
Federal Court of Canada, 2017, Bill of Costs, Court File No T-2506-14.Google Scholar
Supreme Court of Canada. A.C. v. Manitoba, [2009] 2 S.C.R. 181.Google Scholar
Supreme Court of Canada. Attorney General of British Columbia v. Canada Trust Co. et al., [1980] 2 S.C.R. 466.Google Scholar
Supreme Court of Canada. Beckman v. Little Salmon/Carmacks First Nation, [2010] 3 S.C.R. 103.Google Scholar
Supreme Court of Canada. Bilodeau v. A.G., [1986] 1 S.C.R. 449.Google Scholar
Supreme Court of Canada. Borowski v. Canada, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 342.Google Scholar
Supreme Court of Canada. British Columbia v. Okanagan Indian Band, [2003] 3 S.C.R. 371.Google Scholar
Supreme Court of Canada. Carter v. Canada, 2015 SCC 5.Google Scholar
Supreme Court of Canada. DesRochers v. Canada, [2009] 1 S.C.R. 194.Google Scholar
Supreme Court of Canada. Law Society of Upper Canada v. Skapinker, [1984] 1 S.C.R. 357.Google Scholar
Supreme Court of Canada. Little Sisters Book and Art Emporium v. Canada, [2007] 1 S.C.R. 38.Google Scholar
Supreme Court of Canada. R. v. Elias, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 423.Google Scholar
Supreme Court of Canada. R. v. Morales, [1992] 3 S.C.R. 711.Google Scholar
Supreme Court of Canada. Schachter v. Canada, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 679.Google Scholar
Supreme Court of Canada. Trial Lawyers Association of British Columbia v. British Columbia, [2014] 3 S.C.R. 31.Google Scholar
Supreme Court of Canada. Valente v. The Queen, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 673.Google Scholar