In Governing from the Bench, Emmett Macfarlane draws on interviews with current and former justices, law clerks, and other staff members of the court to shed light on the institution’s internal environment and decision-making processes. He explores the complex role of the Supreme Court as an institution; exposes the rules, conventions, and norms that shape and constrain its justices’ behavior; and situates the court in its broader governmental and societal context, as it relates to the elected branches of government, the media, and the public.
In the last half-century, the Supreme Court of Canada has undergone major upheaval. The most drastic change occurred with the adoption of the Charter of Rights in 1982, which substantially increased the Court's role in resolving controversial political and social issues. The Transformation of the Supreme Court of Canada examines the impact of institutional changes on the proceedings and decisions of the Court from 1970 to 2003. The first book on the Supreme Court to incorporate extensive in-depth interviews with former justices, this study provides both insiders' accounts of how decisions are made and an empirical analysis of more than 3,000 Court decisions. Drawing on this extensive commentary and statistical data, Donald R. Songer demonstrates that the Court has remained a politically moderate and democratic institution despite its considerable power and influence. The most comprehensive account of its kind to date, The Transformation of the Supreme Court of Canada makes a significant contribution to the literature and will be of particular interest to scholars and students of judicial behaviour and comparative law.
Engaging and incisive, Brian Dickson: A Judge's Journey traces Dickson's life from a Depression-era boyhood in Saskatchewan, to the battlefields of Normandy, the boardrooms of corporate Canada and high judicial office, and provides an inside look at the work of the Supreme Court during its most crucial period.
In a ground-breaking study on the nature of judicial behaviour in the Supreme Court of Canada, Donald Songer, Susan Johnson, C.L. Ostberg, and Matthew Wetstein use three specific research strategies to consider the ways in which justices seek to make decisions grounded in "good law" and to show how these decisions are shaped within a collegial court. The authors use confidential interviews with Supreme Court justices, analysis of their rulings from 1970 to 2005, and measures that tap their perceived ideological tendencies to provide a critical examination of the ideological roots of judicial decision making, uncovering the complexity of contemporary judicial behaviour. Examining judicial behaviour through the lens of three different research strategies grounded in qualitative and quantitative methodologies,Law, Ideology, and Collegialitypresents compelling evidence that political ideology is a key factor in decision making and a prominent source of conflict in the Supreme Court of Canada.
Media coverage of the Supreme Court of Canada has emerged as a crucial factor not only for judges and journalists but also for the public. It's the media, after all, that decide which court rulings to cover and how. They translate highly complex judgments into concise and meaningful news stories that will appeal to, and be understood by, the general public. Thus, judges lose control of the message once they hand down decisions, and journalists have the last word. To show how the Supreme Court has fared under the media spotlight, Sauvageau, Schneiderman, and Taras examine a year in the life of the court and then focus on the media coverage of four high-profile decisions: the Marshall case, about Aboriginal rights; the Vriend case, about gay rights; the Quebec Secession Reference; and the Sharpe child pornography case. They explore the differences between television and newspaper coverage, national and regional reporting, and the French- and English-language media. They also describe how judges and journalists understand and interact with one another amid often-clashing legal and journalistic cultures, offering a rich and detailed account of the relationship between two of the most important institutions in Canadian life.
Canada's centennial anniversary in 1967 coincided with a period of transformative public policymaking. This period saw the establishment of the modern welfare state, as well as significant growth in the area of cultural diversity, including multiculturalism and bilingualism. Meanwhile, the rising commitment to the protection of individual and collective rights was captured in the project of a "just society." Tracing the past, present, and future of Canadian policymaking, Policy Transformation in Canada examines the country's current and most critical challenges: the renewal of the federation, managing diversity, Canada's relations with Indigenous peoples, the environment, intergenerational equity, global economic integration, and Canada's role in the world. Scrutinizing various public policy issues through the prism of Canada’s sesquicentennial, the contributors consider the transformation of policy and present an accessible portrait of how the Canadian view of policymaking has been reshaped, and where it may be heading in the next fifty years.
This book provides a comprehensive exploration of ideological patterns of judicial behaviour in the Supreme Court of Canada. Relying on an expansive database of Canadian Supreme Court rulings between 1984 and 2003, the authors present the most systematic discussion of the attitudinal model of decision making ever conducted outside the setting of the US Supreme Court. They test the assumption, accepted by many political scientists, that conflict in the courts is due in large part to ideological divisions among the members. The groundbreaking discussion of the viability of the attitudinal model as a unifying theory of judicial behaviour in high courts around the world will be essential reading for a wide range of legal scholars and court watchers.
This book addresses timely questions: What is judicial activism? Can judges simply read their own political preferences into the Charter? Does the Court have the last word over democratically elected legislatures? Are our judges captives of special interests? What can Canadians and their governments do if they think the Court has got it wrong?
Value Change in the Supreme Court of Canada is a groundbreaking analysis of the degree to which Supreme Court decisions reflect the changing values of society over the past four decades. Focusing on three key areas of law: environmental disputes, free speech, and discrimination cases, Wetstein and Ostberg provide a revealing analysis of the language used by Supreme Court justices in landmark rulings in order to document the way that value changes are transmitted into the legal and political landscape. Bolstered by a comprehensive and nuanced blend of research methods, Value Change in the Supreme Court of Canada offers a sweeping analysis of pre- and post-Charter influences, one that will be of significant interest to political scientists, lawyers, journalists, and anyone interested in the increasingly powerful role of the Supreme Court.
The process used to select judges of the Supreme Court of Canada has provoked criticism from the start. Some observers argue the process - where the prime minister has unfettered discretion - suffers from a democratic deficit, but there is also disagreement regarding alternative methods of selection. The Democratic Dilemma: Reforming Canada's Supreme Court explores the institutional features of the Court, whether the existing process used to select judges ought to be reformed, the overall legitimacy of the Court, as well as the selection and appointment processes of Supreme Court justices in other liberal democracies. This book will be of special interest to students and scholars of Canadian federalism, the judiciary, and comparative supreme courts. The Democratic Dilemma: Reforming Canada's Supreme Court is the second volume in the Institute of Intergovernmental Relations' Democratic Dilemma series. The first, The Democratic Dilemma: Reforming the Canadian Senate is edited by Jennifer Smith. Contributors include Arthur Benz (Technische Universität Darmstadt, Germany), Jorge O. Bercholc (Institute of Social and Legal Research Ambrosio L. Gioja), Eugénie Brouillet (Université Laval), Erin Crandall (McGill University), Neil Cruickshank (Algoma University), F.C. DeCoste (University of Alberta), Yonatan Fessha (University of the Western Cape, South Africa), Peter W. Hogg (Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP), Eike-Christian Hornig (Technische Universität Darmstadt, Germany), Allan C. Hutchinson York University), Achim Hurrelmann (Carleton University), Andrée Lajoie (Université de Montréal), Martin Manolov (Human Resources and Skills Development Canada), Aman McLeod (Rutgers University), Peter McCormick (University of Lethbridge), Peter Oliver (University of Ottawa), Yves Tanguay (CRIDAQ), Alan Trench (solicitor, England and Wales), and Nadia Verrelli (Algoma University and Queen's University).
