DOCSLIB.ORG

Interviews with the Three Chief Justices of Ontario On

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Interviews with the Three Chief Justices of Ontario On HOME NEWS & MEDIA JOIN / UPDATE / RENEW CBA.ORG CONTACT US FRANÇAIS SEARCH : SEA SIGN IN MY CBA WHO WE ARE OUR WORK SECTIONS & PROFESSIONAL PUBLICATIONS MEMBERSHIP & FOR THE PUBLIC COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & RESOURCES BENEFITS SECTIONS & COMMUNITY THE THREE CHIEFS: INTERVIEWS WITH THE THREE CHIEF JUSTICES OF ONTARIO ON THE COURTS' Join Sections RESPONSE TO COVID-19 AND THE MODERNIZATION OF About Sections THE JUSTICE SYSTEM Civil Litigation January 12, 2021 About Chief Justice George R. Strathy, Court of Appeal for Ontario; Chief Justice Georey B. Morawetz, Executive Ontario Superior Court of Justice; Chief Justice Lise Maisonneuve, Ontario Court of Justice; and Professional Development David Milosevic Fundamental Sunrise Series News Share Articles Articles 2019 As we start the new year with hope for an emergence from COVID-19 in 2021, we are witnessing rapid changes to Articles 2020 the justice system. Articles 2021 Resources The challenges posed to our justice system by the pandemic, and the courts’ response to those challenges, have Submissions and been a central feature of our lives this past year and will continue into 2021. Legislative Updates But as we look ahead, we see that long-delayed reforms are now underway, with the support of the Chief Justices Galleries of the Ontario Court of Justice, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice and the Court of Appeal for Ontario. Awards E-Discovery At the end of 2020, I interviewed Chief Justice Lise Maisonneuve of the Ontario Court of Justice, Chief Justice Section Constitution Georey B. Morawetz of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice and Chief Justice George R. Strathy of the Court of National Section Appeal for Ontario. Discussion Board The Chief Justices looked back to the early days of the pandemic and described how quickly the challenge of the COVID-19 crisis descended on our institutions, and recounted the urgent response required by the courts in the initial stages of the pandemic. In our interviews, the Chief Justices provide updates on current court operations and challenges the courts are currently facing. Then we look ahead and discuss the future of the justice system in Ontario. Our profession is changing. Court modernization spurred by the pandemic oers real benets in eciency, reduced costs and, it is hoped, greater access to justice. But as with all changes, there are risks as well as benets. The Chief Justices discuss the risk of change, and how to ensure that change benets all Ontarians, not just those with access to the technology that will dene our system going forward. By way of brief introduction, Chief Justice Maisonneuve was appointed Chief Justice of the Ontario Court of Justice in April 2015. Chief Justice Maisonneuve heads Canada’s largest Court, which hears over 200,000 criminal cases (almost 480,000 criminal charges), millions of provincial oences such as trac tickets, and serves over 20,000 families in crisis annually. The Court sits in over 150 locations throughout the province. Prior to her appointment as Chief Justice, Her Honour was associate Chief Justice since 2013, and a judge of the Court from 2001-2013. Chief Justice Morawetz was appointed to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in 2005. The Superior Court is the busiest superior court in Canada, with nearly 200,000 new matters commenced in the Superior Court each year. His Honour served as the court’s team leader of the Commercial List from 2010 to 2013, when he was appointed Regional Senior Justice for the Toronto region. In this role, he heard civil, commercial and Divisional Court matters. He was appointed Chief Justice of the Court on July 1, 2019. Chief Justice Strathy was appointed to the Court of Appeal for Ontario on April 25, 2013, and was subsequently appointed as Chief Justice of Ontario and President of the Court of Appeal for Ontario on June 13, 2014. The Court of Appeal for Ontario hears some 1000 appeals and over 1000 motions each year. From 2007-2013, Chief Justice Strathy served as a judge of the Superior Court of Justice in the Toronto Region, where he presided over civil, class action and criminal matters. David Milosevic: Can you tell me when you rst recognized that COVID might pose a signicant threat to normal court operations? Chief Justice Maisonneuve (OCJ): I think you can imagine when COVID hit, it was quite a shock to the system. For our world and courts, it was probably like everyone else, mid-February to the end of February. And then right in the beginning of March, within six days, everything had to come almost to a halt in the system. So it came quickly, like the rest of society, I think. Everyone was quite shocked how quickly the virus could spread, and the impact that could have on our society. And more specically for me, on the courts. Chief Justice Morawetz (ONSC): I would liken it to a snowball coming down the hill. It started o quite slowly, and I think it was around January when we heard the rst report of a positive case in Canada. It was in Toronto - an individual who I recollect had been traveling overseas. But by that point, given that it was starting to get into the press each day, we did get in touch with the Ministry of the Attorney General to review whatever plans they had in the event of community transmission. We also had a meeting with the Ministry ocials in mid-February. I think it is fair to say that both my Executive Legal Ocer, Mohan Sharma, and I were concerned about the suciency of the Ministry's plan. It's always great to look at these things with the benet of hindsight, but I think right across society generally, there was a lack of appreciation as to how serious this issue would become. Chief Justice Strathy (ONCA): It came on very suddenly. I distinctly remember ying back from Ottawa on the evening of the 12th of March. By the time I woke up on Friday, the 13th of March, it was pretty clear that we were going to have to take immediate steps to address the pandemic. On the following Monday we canceled all hearings scheduled for that day. On the Tuesday, Ontario declared a state of emergency. We immediately cancelled hearings for the balance of the week, and then essentially for the balance of the month of March. Ultimately, we didn't hear any matters other than urgent matters, until about the end of April. David Milosevic: What were the rst measures the court undertook to respond to the pandemic? Chief Justice Maisonneuve (OCJ): It quickly became apparent to us that the one thing we had to do was reduce the amount of trac in the buildings themselves. So we had to reduce the amount of people coming in. From my perspective, the rst thing we did is we looked at our busiest court. Which courts attract most people? Well, of course, in the criminal those are remand courts, are plea courts. And then to a lesser extent, the trials and the preliminary hearings. And of course the same with family. The case management court for family, the emergency motions for family. So right away those courts, we tried our best to make them virtual. And in some instance, we could not set up the virtual appearance fast enough, so we automatically developed directives to have automatic adjournments. So if you were to appear in a certain court for your case management court in criminal, you were automatically adjourned for 10 weeks, let's say, at the beginning, without the need of appearing, so that we would stop people from appearing. And at the same time, however, we realized that there's some courts that needed to continue at the beginning, and still do now, which was the bail court, for example. People who are arrested overnight and have a right to their bail hearings, we just couldn't stop that operation. So we immediately tried to do everything we could remotely. And that was quite a challenge, because unfortunately, the courts and the jails are not equipped with the proper infrastructure to have a call like you and I are having now. That was not in place, we were not doing that before COVID. So we had to quickly react to make sure that those people were served, and that there was still access to justice, even though we were in a pandemic. We did our best, but yes, some were delayed, especially in our larger centers. And we even went to doing bail hearings by phone, which is not the optimal conditions to have for a bail hearing. A bail hearing is a very important part of the process. We have to remember that people are presumed innocent, and they haven't been found guilty yet. And the bail hearing needs to be accommodated. So we did our best to do everything we could. We did many by phone until we could get the infrastructure to be able to use more of our video capacity. We did have some capacity in before, but we never counted on the volume to have to deal with all of the bail hearings. Because before COVID, of course, we were bringing people into the building, and we were just doing our remands by video, not actually running a full bail hearing, which sometimes could last two to three hours in any court. So if you look at Ontario as a whole, and you start having everyone appearing by video, the system couldn't handle it. We didn't have the infrastructure.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Four Courts of Sir Lyman Duff
    THE FOUR COURTS OF SIR LYMAN DUFF RICHARD GOSSE* Vancouver I. Introduction. Sir Lyman Poore Duff is the dominating figure in the Supreme Court of Canada's first hundred years. He sat on the court for more than one-third of those years, in the middle period, from 1906 to 1944, participating in nearly 2,000 judgments-and throughout that tenure he was commonly regarded as the court's most able judge. Appointed at forty-one, Duff has been the youngest person ever to have been elevated to the court. Twice his appointment was extended by special Acts of Parliament beyond the mandatory retirement age of seventy-five, a recogni- tion never accorded to any other Canadian judge. From 1933, he sat as Chief Justice, having twice previously-in 1918 and 1924 - almost succeeded to that post, although on those occasions he was not the senior judge. During World War 1, when Borden considered resigning over the conscription issue and recommending to the Governor General that an impartial national figure be called upon to form a government, the person foremost in his mind was Duff, although Sir Lyman had never been elected to public office. After Borden had found that he had the support to continue himself, Duff was invited to join the Cabinet but declined. Mackenzie King con- sidered recommending Duff for appointment as the first Canadian Governor General. Duff undertook several inquiries of national interest for the federal government, of particular significance being the 1931-32 Royal Commission on Transportation, of which he was chairman, and the 1942 investigation into the sending of Canadian troops to Hong Kong, in which he was the sole commissioner .
    [Show full text]
  • Special Series on the Federal Dimensions of Reforming the Supreme Court of Canada
    SPECIAL SERIES ON THE FEDERAL DIMENSIONS OF REFORMING THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA The Supreme Court of Canada: A Chronology of Change Jonathan Aiello Institute of Intergovernmental Relations School of Policy Studies, Queen’s University SC Working Paper 2011 21 May 1869 Intent on there being a final court of appeal in Canada following the Bill for creation of a Supreme country’s inception in 1867, John A. Macdonald, along with Court is withdrawn statesmen Télesphore Fournier, Alexander Mackenzie and Edward Blake propose a bill to establish the Supreme Court of Canada. However, the bill is withdrawn due to staunch support for the existing system under which disappointed litigants could appeal the decisions of Canadian courts to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (JCPC) sitting in London. 18 March 1870 A second attempt at establishing a final court of appeal is again Second bill for creation of a thwarted by traditionalists and Conservative members of Parliament Supreme Court is withdrawn from Quebec, although this time the bill passed first reading in the House. 8 April 1875 The third attempt is successful, thanks largely to the efforts of the Third bill for creation of a same leaders - John A. Macdonald, Télesphore Fournier, Alexander Supreme Court passes Mackenzie and Edward Blake. Governor General Sir O’Grady Haly gives the Supreme Court Act royal assent on September 17th. 30 September 1875 The Honourable William Johnstone Ritchie, Samuel Henry Strong, The first five puisne justices Jean-Thomas Taschereau, Télesphore Fournier, and William are appointed to the Court Alexander Henry are appointed puisne judges to the Supreme Court of Canada.
    [Show full text]
  • Youth Activity Book (PDF)
    Supreme Court of Canada Youth Activity Book Photos Philippe Landreville, photographer Library and Archives Canada JU5-24/2016E-PDF 978-0-660-06964-7 Supreme Court of Canada, 2019 Hello! My name is Amicus. Welcome to the Supreme Court of Canada. I will be guiding you through this activity book, which is a fun-filled way for you to learn about the role of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Canadian judicial system. I am very proud to have been chosen to represent the highest court in the country. The owl is a good ambassador for the Supreme Court because it symbolizes wisdom and learning and because it is an animal that lives in Canada. The Supreme Court of Canada stands at the top of the Canadian judicial system and is therefore Canada’s highest court. This means that its decisions are final. The cases heard by the Supreme Court of Canada are those that raise questions of public importance or important questions of law. It is time for you to test your knowledge while learning some very cool facts about Canada’s highest court. 1 Colour the official crest of the Supreme Court of Canada! The crest of the Supreme Court is inlaid in the centre of the marble floor of the Grand Entrance Hall. It consists of the letters S and C encircled by a garland of leaves and was designed by Ernest Cormier, the building’s architect. 2 Let’s play detective: Find the words and use the remaining letters to find a hidden phrase. The crest of the Supreme Court is inlaid in the centre of the marble floor of the Grand Entrance Hall.
    [Show full text]
  • Privy Council (For Canada)
    Privy Council (for Canada) The Privy Council for Canada is a group of prominent individuals appointed, for life, by the Governor General. The appointments are made, as a matter ofconvention , on the advice of the Prime Minister. The Privy Council is tasked with aiding the reigning monarch (and thus the Governor General) by providing advice on significant issues.[1] Privy Council – A Brief History The origins of the English Privy Council date back to that country’s earliest history,[2] but little is known of its structure or procedures before 1540.[3] In addition to its advisory role to the British Monarch, from 1833 until 1949, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council served as the highest Court of Appeal for Canada: supreme even to our own Supreme Court.[4] During this period, Canadian constitutional law was largely shaped from London.[5] The Canadian Privy Council was established by theBritish North America Act, 1867 (later renamed the Constitution Act, 1867).[6] Unlike its counterpart in the United Kingdom, it never functioned as a court. Instead, it was tasked with advising the Monarch, and with passing all orders-in-council / acts of executive power.[7] Privy Council – The Job Today, the Privy Council continues its historic role, advising the Governor General on various matters of state, including the use of royal prerogative (e.g. declaring war, assenting to legislation and calling an election).[8] However, advice given by the full council is not binding: the Governor General is, in practice, only obligated to follow the advice
    [Show full text]
  • 1 PUBLIC and MEDIA RELATIONS in CANADA Remarks by Jennifer
    1 PUBLIC AND MEDIA RELATIONS IN CANADA Remarks by Jennifer Stairs, Director of Communications, Nova Scotia Judiciary Canadians live in a society that places a high value on openness in the justice system. The general rule in Canada is that trials are open to the public and may be reported in full. By enabling the public to attend court proceedings and allowing access to court documents, our citizens are able to learn about the law firsthand. But is that enough to enhance their confidence in the legal system? Probably not. Most people would never think to visit a courthouse or sit in on a trial, unless they have to. Even if they chose to, the proceedings are often complex and difficult to follow without legal training. Whether we like it or not, the average citizen learns about the legal system primarily through movies, television and news coverage of court proceedings. In 2012, Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin of the Supreme Court of Canada talked about the power journalists have over the public’s perception of the justice system: “The media, reporting accurately and fairly on legal proceedings and judgments, including criticism, even strong criticism, make an invaluable contribution to public confidence in the judiciary and, thus, to the rule of law itself. On the other hand, inaccurate, unfair or sensationalized reportage … has the potential to distort the public’s view of the justice system and undermine public confidence in the rule of law.”1 Every negative news story and every inaccurate comment erodes public confidence. And once it’s gone, it’s difficult to gain it back.
    [Show full text]
  • Rt. Hon. Beverley Mclachlin, P.C. Chief Justice of Canada
    Published July 2014 Judicial Profile by Witold Tymowski Rt. Hon. Beverley McLachlin, P.C. Chief Justice of Canada here is little in the early life of Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin that would foreshadow her rise to the highest judicial office in Canada. After all, she was not raised in a large cosmopolitan center, but on a modest Tranch on the outskirts of Pincher Creek, Alberta, a small town in the lee of Canada’s beautiful Rocky Mountains. Her parents, Eleanora Kruschell and Ernest Gietz, did not come from wealth and privilege. They were hard- working ranchers who also took care of a nearby sawmill. Chief Justice McLachlin readily admits that growing up, she had no professional female role models. And so, becoming a lawyer, let alone a judge, was never part of her early career plans. Indeed, the expectation at the time was that women would marry and remain within the home. Girls might aspire to teaching, nursing, or secretarial work, but usually only for a short time before they married. Her childhood, nonetheless, had a distinct influence on her eventual career path. Chief Justice McLachlin proudly refers to herself as a farm girl and has often spoken of a deep affection for Pincher Creek. A Robert McInnes painting depicting a serene pastoral scene, appropriately entitled Pincher Creek, occupies a prominent place in her Supreme Court office and offers a reminder of her humble beginnings. That Chief Justice McLachlin maintains a deep connec- tion with her birthplace is hardly surprising. Despite its geographical remoteness, it nurtured its youth with a It grounded her with a common-sense practicality and culture centered on literacy, hard work, and self-reli- the importance of doing your honest best at whatever ance.
    [Show full text]
  • The Right Honourable Beverley Mclachlin, PC, CC, Cstj
    The Right Honourable Beverley McLachlin, PC, CC, CStJ The Right Honourable Beverley McLachlin served as Chief Justice of Canada from 2000 to mid-December 2017. Ms. McLachlin works as an arbitrator and mediator in Canada and internationally. She brings to those forms of dispute resolution her broad and deep experience from over 35 years in deciding a wide range of business law and public law disputes, in both common law and civil law; her ability to work in both English and French; and her experience and skill in leading and consensus-building for many years as the head of a diverse nine- member court. Ms. McLachlin also sits as a Justice of Singapore’s International Commercial Court and the Hong Kong Final Court of Appeal. Her judicial career began in 1981 in the province of British Columbia, Canada. She was appointed to the Supreme Court of British Columbia (a court of first instance) later that year and was elevated to the British Columbia Court of Appeal in 1985. She was appointed Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of British Columbia in 1988 and seven months later, she was sworn in as a Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada. Ms. McLachlin is the first and only woman to be Chief Justice of Canada and she is Canada’s longest serving Chief Justice. The former Chief Justice chaired the Canadian Judicial Council, the Advisory Council of the Order of Canada and the Board of Governors of the National Judicial Institute. In June 2018 she was appointed to the Order of Canada as a recipient of its highest accolade, Companion of the Order of Canada.
    [Show full text]
  • The New Process for Judicial Appointments to the Supreme Court of Canada
    THE NEW PROCESS FOR JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS TO THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA Report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights Anthony Housefather Chair FEBRUARY 2017 42nd PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION Published under the authority of the Speaker of the House of Commons SPEAKER’S PERMISSION Reproduction of the proceedings of the House of Commons and its Committees, in whole or in part and in any medium, is hereby permitted provided that the reproduction is accurate and is not presented as official. This permission does not extend to reproduction, distribution or use for commercial purpose of financial gain. Reproduction or use outside this permission or without authorization may be treated as copyright infringement in accordance with the Copyright Act. Authorization may be obtained on written application to the Office of the Speaker of the House of Commons. Reproduction in accordance with this permission does not constitute publication under the authority of the House of Commons. The absolute privilege that applies to the proceedings of the House of Commons does not extend to these permitted reproductions. Where a reproduction includes briefs to a Standing Committee of the House of Commons, authorization for reproduction may be required from the authors in accordance with the Copyright Act. Nothing in this permission abrogates or derogates from the privileges, powers, immunities and rights of the House of Commons and its Committees. For greater certainty, this permission does not affect the prohibition against impeaching or questioning the proceedings of the House of Commons in courts or otherwise. The House of Commons retains the right and privilege to find users in contempt of Parliament if a reproduction or use is not in accordance with this permission.
    [Show full text]
  • Reconciliation and the Supreme Court: the Opposing Views of Chief Justices Lamer and Mclachlin
    Osgoode Hall Law School of York University Osgoode Digital Commons Articles & Book Chapters Faculty Scholarship 2003 Reconciliation and the Supreme Court: The Opposing Views of Chief Justices Lamer and McLachlin Kent McNeil Osgoode Hall Law School of York University, [email protected] Source Publication: Indigenous Law Journal. Volume 2, Issue 1 (2003), p. 1-26. Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/scholarly_works This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License. Recommended Citation McNeil, Kent. "Reconciliation and the Supreme Court: The Opposing Views of Chief Justices Lamer and McLachlin." Indigenous Law Journal 2.1 (2003): 1-26. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Osgoode Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Articles & Book Chapters by an authorized administrator of Osgoode Digital Commons. Reconciliation and the Supreme Court: The Opposing Views of Chief Justices Lamer and McLachlin KENT MCNEIL' I INTRODUCTION 2 II CHIEF JUSTICE LAMER'S VIEWS 4 III MCLACHLIN J.'S VIEWS BEFORE SHE BECAME CHIEF JUSTICE 10 IV ANALYSIS OF THESE DIVERGENT VIEWS OF RECONCILIATION 17 V FURTHER DEVELOPMENTS: DELGAMUUKW AND MARSHALL 19 VI CONCLUSION 23 The Supreme Court of Canada has said that Aboriginal rights were recognized and affirmed in the Canadian Constitution in 1982 in order to reconcile Aboriginalpeoples'prior occupation of Canada with the Crown's assertion of sovereignty. However, sharp divisions appeared in the Court in the 1990s over how this reconciliation is to be achieved Chief Justice Lamer, for the majority, understood reconciliation to involve the balancingof Aboriginal rights with the interests of other Canadians.In some situations,he thought this couldjustify the infringement of Aboriginal rights to achieve, for example, economic and regional fairness.
    [Show full text]
  • The Supremecourt History Of
    The SupremeCourt of Canada History of the Institution JAMES G. SNELL and FREDERICK VAUGHAN The Osgoode Society 0 The Osgoode Society 1985 Printed in Canada ISBN 0-8020-34179 (cloth) Canadian Cataloguing in Publication Data Snell, James G. The Supreme Court of Canada lncludes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-802@34179 (bound). - ISBN 08020-3418-7 (pbk.) 1. Canada. Supreme Court - History. I. Vaughan, Frederick. 11. Osgoode Society. 111. Title. ~~8244.5661985 347.71'035 C85-398533-1 Picture credits: all pictures are from the Supreme Court photographic collection except the following: Duff - private collection of David R. Williams, Q.c.;Rand - Public Archives of Canada PA@~I; Laskin - Gilbert Studios, Toronto; Dickson - Michael Bedford, Ottawa. This book has been published with the help of a grant from the Social Science Federation of Canada, using funds provided by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA History of the Institution Unknown and uncelebrated by the public, overshadowed and frequently overruled by the Privy Council, the Supreme Court of Canada before 1949 occupied a rather humble place in Canadian jurisprudence as an intermediate court of appeal. Today its name more accurately reflects its function: it is the court of ultimate appeal and the arbiter of Canada's constitutionalquestions. Appointment to its bench is the highest achieve- ment to which a member of the legal profession can aspire. This history traces the development of the Supreme Court of Canada from its establishment in the earliest days following Confederation, through itsattainment of independence from the Judicial Committeeof the Privy Council in 1949, to the adoption of the Constitution Act, 1982.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Aboriginal Judicial Appointments to the Supreme Court of Canada A
    Aboriginal Judicial Appointments to the Supreme Court of Canada A Paper Prepared for the Indigenous Bar Association by James C. Hopkins and Albert C. Peeling April 6, 2004 1 Introduction Recent remarks by the newly appointed Minister of Justice affirming the possibility of the regular appointment of an Aboriginal person (an Indian, Inuit or Métis) to the Supreme Court of Canada mark something of a watershed in the evolution of Canada. The remarks are not without controversy. Fears of bias have been expressed in certain quarters, based on the proposition that an Aboriginal person cannot be impartial concerning Aboriginal rights. Of course, if that is true then so is the opposite statement, that descendents of settlers cannot be unbiased either. Arguments appealing to fear are not logically compelling, and given the fact that they apply equally to both Aboriginal and non Aboriginal people, point to the fact that the legitimacy of the Courts as institutions belonging to both settlers and Aboriginal people in Canada can only be enhanced by the participation of Aboriginal people in them. We propose then to move beyond in terroram argument and analyze the issue in a more principled way. Another more serious objection raised against the appointment of an Aboriginal justice to the Supreme Court rhetorically asks “If an Aboriginal is to be appointed, then why not representatives of other minority groups?” This is a type of floodgates argument, which suggests that it is not possible for all minorities to be represented on the Court, and therefore no special recognition of Aboriginal people on the Court should be made.
    [Show full text]
  • The Supreme Court of Canada and the Judicial Role: an Historical Institutionalist Account
    THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA AND THE JUDICIAL ROLE: AN HISTORICAL INSTITUTIONALIST ACCOUNT by EMMETT MACFARLANE A thesis submitted to the Department of Political Studies in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Queen’s University Kingston, Ontario, Canada November, 2009 Copyright © Emmett Macfarlane, 2009 i Abstract This dissertation describes and analyzes the work of the Supreme Court of Canada, emphasizing its internal environment and processes, while situating the institution in its broader governmental and societal context. In addition, it offers an assessment of the behavioural and rational choice models of judicial decision making, which tend to portray judges as primarily motivated by their ideologically-based policy preferences. The dissertation adopts a historical institutionalist approach to demonstrate that judicial decision making is far more complex than is depicted by the dominant approaches within the political science literature. Drawing extensively on 28 research interviews with current and former justices, former law clerks and other staff members, the analysis traces the development of the Court into a full-fledged policy-making institution, particularly under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This analysis presents new empirical evidence regarding not only the various stages of the Court’s decision-making process but the justices’ views on a host of considerations ranging from questions of collegiality (how the justices should work together) to their involvement in controversial and complex social policy matters and their relationship with the other branches of government. These insights are important because they increase our understanding of how the Court operates as one of the country’s more important policy-making institutions.
    [Show full text]