DOCSLIB.ORG

The Day the Dialogue Died: a Comment on Sauve V. Canada

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Day the Dialogue Died: a Comment on Sauve V. Canada Osgoode Hall Law Journal Volume 45, Number 1 (Spring 2007) Article 5 Charter Dialogue: Ten Years Later The aD y the Dialogue Died: A Comment on Sauve v. Canada Christopher P. Manfredi Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/ohlj Part of the Constitutional Law Commons Commentary Citation Information Manfredi, Christopher P.. "The aD y the Dialogue Died: A Comment on Sauve v. Canada." Osgoode Hall Law Journal 45.1 (2007) : 105-123. http://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/ohlj/vol45/iss1/5 This Commentary is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Osgoode Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Osgoode Hall Law Journal by an authorized editor of Osgoode Digital Commons. The aD y the Dialogue Died: A Comment on Sauve v. Canada Abstract In Sauvé v. Canada (2002) a sharply divided Supreme Court of Canada nullified the inmate disenfranchisement provision of the Canada Elections Act. One of the more important aspects of the majority decision by Chief Justice McLachlin is her refusal to let the concept of dialogue take her down the path of judicial deference. This commentary examines the chief justice's reasons for not taking this path and explores how these reasons reveal the limitations of the dialogue metaphor as originally articulated by Peter Hogg and Allison Bushell. The ommec ntary concludes that any meaningful concept of legislative-judicial dialogue must recognize a coordinate legislative authority to interpret a constitution. Keywords Canada; Canada. Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; Judicial review; Prisoners--Legal status, laws, etc. This commentary is available in Osgoode Hall Law Journal: http://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/ohlj/vol45/iss1/5 Commentary THE DAY THE DIALOGUE DIED: A COMMENT ON SAUVE V CA NADA© CHRISTOPHER P. MANFREDI * In Sauvd v. Canada (2002) a sharply divided Supreme Dans l'affaire Sauvd c. Canada (2002), la Cour Court of Canada nullified the inmate supreme du Canada, .prement partag6e, rendait nulle disenfranchisement provision of the Canada Elections la disposition de la Loielectoraledu Canada, relative A Act. One of the more important aspects of the majority l'incapacit6 6lectorale d'un d6tenu. L'un des volets les decision by Chief Justice McLachlin is her refusal to plus importants de la d6cision majoritaire de Mme let the concept of dialogue take her down the path of McL-achlin, juge en chef, est son refus de laisser le judicial deference. This commentary examines the concept de dialogue l'emmener sur la voie de la chief justice's reasons for not taking this path and retenue judiciaire. Ce commentaire examine les motifs explores how these reasons reveal the limitations of pour lesquels la juge en chef na pas voulu suivre cette the dialogue metaphor as originally articulated by voie, et explore en quoi ces motifs r6vlent les Peter Hogg and Allison Bushell. The commentary limitations de la m6taphore du dialogue, comme l'ont concludes that any meaningful concept of legislative- 6 l'origine formul6e Peter Hogg et Allison Bushell. Le judicial dialogue must recognize a coordinate commentaire conclut que tout concept significatif de legislative authority to interpret a constitution. dialogue legislatif-judiciaire doit reconnaitre une autorit6 -16gislative coordonn~e pour interpr6ter une constitution. I. THE ROAD TO THE SUPREME COURT ......................................................107 II. THE DIALOGUE QUESTION .................................. 110 III. SAUVt2AND THE LIMITS OF DIALOGUE ...............................................116 IV. CONCLUDING REM ARKS ...............................................................................122 On 31 October 2002 the Supreme Court of Canada delivered its decision in Sauv6 v. Canada (Chief ElectoralOfficer). 1 At issue was the constitutionality of section 1(e) of the Canada Elections Act,2 which disenfranchised individuals "imprisoned in a correctional institution ©2007, C.P. Manfredi. Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Professor of Political Science, McGill University. Sauv6 v. Canada (ChiefElectoral Officer), [2002] 3 S.C.R. 519 [Sauv6 No. 2 ]. Canada ElectionsAct, R.S.C. 1985, c. E-2, s. 51(e), as am. by S.C. 1993, c. 19, s. 23. OSGOODE HALL LAW JOURNAL [VOL. 45, NO. I serving a sentence of two years or more."3 In an unusually acrimonious set of opinions, the Court nullified the provision by a single vote. Two aspects of the judgment stand out in particular. The first aspect is Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin's openly hostile attitude toward the state of U.S. jurisprudence on the question. She did not cite-even to reject- the controlling U.S. decision on the matter, and she dismissed the practice of criminal disenfranchisement in other jurisdictions in terms that questioned whether such jurisdictions could even be called democracies.4 The second aspect is her refusal to allow the concept of dialogue to take her down the path of judicial deference. Both of these elements of the judgment merit closer analysis, but in this commentary I focus on the second: the concept of dialogue. Since 1999, either alone or in collaboration with James Kelly, I have been a participant in the debate generated by Peter W. Hogg and Allison A. Bushell's original dialogue article "Charter Dialogue."5 The essence of that participation has been to argue that the "Charter Dialogue" argument about legislative-judicial dialogue is normatively flawed and empirically problematic. I suggest in this commentary that these weaknesses are strikingly apparent in Sauv6 No. 2, which effectively brought an end to the short history of the dialogue metaphor as a useful guide to judicial decision making. This commentary begins by describing the path that brought criminal . disenfranchisement to the Supreme Court in Sauv6 No. 2. It then turns its attention to a general discussion of the dialogue question, revisiting many of the arguments I have advanced in other contexts. Finally, it turns to the Sauv6No. 2judgment itself, in order to explore what it reveals about the limitations of the dialogue concept. Ibid., s. 51(e). In effect, this meant that only inmates of federal penitentiaries would be affected by the voting restriction, since sentences of less than two years are served in provincial prisons and/or jails. ' Supra note 1 at 548, per McLachlin C.J.C. ("that not all self-proclaimed democracies adhere to principles of inclusiveness, equality and citizen participation, ... says little about what the Canadian vision of democracy embodied in the Charterpermits"). ' Peter W. Hogg & Allison A. Bushell, "The Charter Dialogue Between Courts and Legislatures (Or Perhaps the Charter of Rights Isn't Such A Bad Thing After All)" (1997) 35 Osgoode Hall L.J. 75 [" CharterDialogue"]. 2007] The Day the DialogueDied I. THE ROAD TO THE SUPREME COURT In contrast to the United States, where the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the plenary power of states to disenfranchise convicted persons,6 prisoners' rights advocates in Canada during the 1980s and 1990s were successful in challenging provincial and federal voting restrictions. Constitutional challenges to the Canada Elections Act began in earnest in 1988 and produced mixed results until a Supreme Court decision in 1993.' Prisoners' rights advocates achieved trial court victories in 1988 and 1991, but also lost one case in 1988.' At the appellate level, they lost one case in 1988,1" but won two cases in 1992.11 As a result, by the end of 1992, prisoners' rights advocates had secured decisions from the Ontario Court of Appeal and the Federal Court of Appeal declaring the relevant provisions of the Canada Elections Act unconstitutional. Indeed, the Ontario court refused even to acknowledge the legitimacy of the federal government's reasons for criminal disenfranchisement, and the federal appellate court found the restriction to be "arbitrary, unfair, 12 and based on irrational considerations., On 27 May 1993 the Supreme Court delivered its unanimous judgment in the companion cases Attorney General of Canada v. Sauvd (Sauv No. 1) and The Queen v. Belczowski' 3 The Court found the lower court judgments in these cases so compelling as to require only a two-paragraph oral judgment affirming that the act disenfranchised prison inmates and thus violated the right to vote guaranteed by section 3 of the Charter.Parliament responded to the Sauvd No. 1 decision by redrafting the Canada Elections Act to narrow the affected class of persons to inmates of federal penitentiaries who have been convicted of indictable offences. Predictably, prisoners' rights advocates reacted to 6 Richardson v.Ramirez, 418 U.S. 24 (1974). 7[1993] 2 S.C.R. 438. ' Badger v.Canada (1988), 55 Man. R. (2d) 198 (Q.B.); Belczowski v.Canada, [1991] 3 F.C. 151 (T.D.) [Belczowski1991]. 9 Sauvd v.Canada (Attorney General) (1988), 66 O.R. (2d) 234.(H.C.J). '°Badgerv. Canada (1988), 55 Man. R. (2d) 198 at 204-05 (C.A.). " Belczowski v. Canada, [1992] 2 F.C. 440 (C.A.) [Belczowski 1992]; Sauv6 v. Canada (AttorneyGeneral) (1992), 7 O.R. (3d) 481 (C.A.). '2 R. v.Oake, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103 at 138-39 [Oakes], cited in Belczowski1991, supranote 8 at 165. 3 ' Sauv6 v.Canada (Attorney General), [1993] 2 S.C.R. 438 [Sauvi No.1]. OSGOODE HALL LAW JOURNAL [VOL. 45, NO. I the amended legislation by filing new constitutional challenges to the Canada Elections Act. A challenge was once again filed on behalf of Richard Sauv6, while another was filed on behalf of a group of Aboriginal inmates in Manitoba led by Sheldon McCorrister 4 In addition to the standard voting rights arguments, these challenges also advanced two novel equality rights arguments. 5 First, they argued that prisoners, as a group, constitute a discrete and insular minority that has been historically subjected to social, legal, and political discrimination. Second, they argued that the criminal justice system is riddled with systemic discrimination, as reflected in the disproportionate representation of Aboriginal Canadians in the federal inmate population.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Social Context Education Project (SCEP) Was a Special Project of the National Judicial Institute Between 1996-2003
    NATIONAL JUDICIAL INSTITUTE, CANADA THE SOCIAL CONTEXT EDUCATION PROJECT SUMMARY The Social Context Education Project (SCEP) was a special project of the National Judicial Institute between 1996-2003. The program had two phases: • Phase I concentrated on full-court education seminars in every province of Canada. These seminars were designed to create a common base of information and understanding of the relevance and applicability of social context among all judges in Canada. Over 20 programs were held involving over 1000 judges. • Phase II focused on developed skilled judicial education leaders in this area through an intensive program of judicial faculty development. Curriculum development was another focus of Phase II. Since 2003, social context has been integrated as a regular component of NJI work through adoption of the guiding principle that judicial education should always be ‘three dimensional’ (substantive law, skills development and social context awareness) and designation of a member of the senior management team responsible for social context integration. The Social Context Education Program: • Built on work initiated in Canada by the Western Judicial Education Centre • Was mandated by the Canadian Judicial Council and supported by Chief Judges. • Built from the premise that understanding social context and integrating it into judicial processes and judicial decision-making is mandated by law. • Was developed in synergy with jurisprudential developments explicitly recognizing the legitimacy of contextual inquiry in judicial decision-making. • Has proceeded on the basis that social context education is a long-term process not an inoculation. The long-term goal is integration of social context into all forms of judicial education as an automatic part of the landscape.
    [Show full text]
  • The Honourable Charles Doherty Gonthier, Formerly a Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, Passed Away in Montreal, Quebec, on July 17, 2009
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE OTTAWA, July 20, 2009 – The Honourable Charles Doherty Gonthier, formerly a Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, passed away in Montreal, Quebec, on July 17, 2009. Born in Montreal, Justice Gonthier received his Bachelor of Civil Law from McGill University. He was called to the Bar of Quebec in 1952, and subsequently practised law, first with the firm of Hackett, Mulvena & Laverty, and then with the firm of Hugessen, Macklaier, Chisholm, Smith & Davis, later known as Laing, Weldon, Courtois, Clarkson, Parsons, Gonthier & Tétrault. Justice Gonthier was appointed to the Quebec Superior Court in 1974, and elevated to the Quebec Court of Appeal in 1988. Less than a year later, on February 1, 1989, he was appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada. He served on the Supreme Court of Canada for fourteen years, retiring on August 1, 2003. Since his retirement, Justice Gonthier served as counsel in the law firm of McCarthy Tétrault, as Chair of the Board of Governors of the Centre for International Sustainable Development Law at the Law Faculty of McGill University, and as Commissioner of the Communications Security Establishment. Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, on behalf of the members of the Supreme Court of Canada, mourned Justice Gonthier’s passing, “Charles Gonthier was an eminent and highly respected Canadian jurist. His development of the notions of equity and good faith, particularly in the area of contract law, has benefited all Canadians. But Justice Gonthier’s contributions extended far beyond the courtroom. His active dedication to the arts, and to issues such as sustainable development, demonstrated a unique interest in the welfare of both current and future generations.
    [Show full text]
  • Canadian Law Library Review Revue Canadienne Des Bibliothèques Is Published By: De Droit Est Publiée Par
    CANADIAN LAW LIBRARY REVIEW REVUE CANADIENNE DES BIBLIOTHÈQUES DE DROIT 2017 CanLIIDocs 227 VOLUME/TOME 42 (2017) No. 2 APA Journals® Give Your Users the Psychological Research They Need LEADING JOURNALS IN LAW AND PSYCHOLOGY 2017 CanLIIDocs 227 Law and Human Behavior® Official Journal of APA Division 41 (American Psychology-Law Society) Bimonthly • ISSN 0147-7307 2.884 5-Year Impact Factor®* | 2.542 2015 Impact Factor®* Psychological Assessment® Monthly • ISSN 1040-3590 3.806 5-Year Impact Factor®* | 2.901 2015 Impact Factor®* Psychology, Public Policy, and Law® Quarterly • ISSN 1076-8971 2.612 5-Year Impact Factor®* | 1.986 2015 Impact Factor®* Journal of Threat Assessment and Management® Official Journal of the Association of Threat Assessment Professionals, the Association of European Threat Assessment Professionals, the Canadian Association of Threat Assessment Professionals, and the Asia Pacific Association of Threat Assessment Professionals Quarterly • ISSN 2169-4842 * ©Thomson Reuters, Journal Citation Reports® for 2015 ENHANCE YOUR PSYCHOLOGY SERIALS COLLECTION To Order Journal Subscriptions, Contact Your Preferred Subscription Agent American Psychological Association | 750 First Street, NE | Washington, DC 20002-4242 USA ‖‖ CONTENTS / SOMMAIRE 5 From the Editor The Law of Declaratory Judgments 40 De la rédactrice Reviewed by Melanie R. Bueckert 7 President’s Message Pocket Ontario OH&S Guide to Violence and 41 Le mot de la présidente Harassment Reviewed by Megan Siu 9 Featured Articles Articles de fond Power of Persuasion: Essays
    [Show full text]
  • Canadian Law Library Review Revue Canadienne Des Bibliothèques Is Published By: De Droit Est Publiée Par
    CANADIAN LAW LIBRARY REVIEW REVUE CANADIENNE DES BIBLIOTHÈQUES DE DROIT VOLUME/TOME 42 (2017) No. 2 APA Journals® Give Your Users the Psychological Research They Need LEADING JOURNALS IN LAW AND PSYCHOLOGY Law and Human Behavior® Official Journal of APA Division 41 (American Psychology-Law Society) Bimonthly • ISSN 0147-7307 2.884 5-Year Impact Factor®* | 2.542 2015 Impact Factor®* Psychological Assessment® Monthly • ISSN 1040-3590 3.806 5-Year Impact Factor®* | 2.901 2015 Impact Factor®* Psychology, Public Policy, and Law® Quarterly • ISSN 1076-8971 2.612 5-Year Impact Factor®* | 1.986 2015 Impact Factor®* Journal of Threat Assessment and Management® Official Journal of the Association of Threat Assessment Professionals, the Association of European Threat Assessment Professionals, the Canadian Association of Threat Assessment Professionals, and the Asia Pacific Association of Threat Assessment Professionals Quarterly • ISSN 2169-4842 * ©Thomson Reuters, Journal Citation Reports® for 2015 ENHANCE YOUR PSYCHOLOGY SERIALS COLLECTION To Order Journal Subscriptions, Contact Your Preferred Subscription Agent American Psychological Association | 750 First Street, NE | Washington, DC 20002-4242 USA ‖‖ CONTENTS / SOMMAIRE 5 From the Editor The Law of Declaratory Judgments 40 De la rédactrice Reviewed by Melanie R. Bueckert 7 President’s Message Pocket Ontario OH&S Guide to Violence and 41 Le mot de la présidente Harassment Reviewed by Megan Siu 9 Featured Articles Articles de fond Power of Persuasion: Essays by a Very Public 41 Edited by John
    [Show full text]
  • Reforming the Supreme Court Appointment Process, 2004-2014: a 10-Year Democratic Audit 2014 Canliidocs 33319 Adam M
    The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference Volume 67 (2014) Article 4 Reforming the Supreme Court Appointment Process, 2004-2014: A 10-Year Democratic Audit 2014 CanLIIDocs 33319 Adam M. Dodek Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/sclr This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License. Citation Information Dodek, Adam M.. "Reforming the Supreme Court Appointment Process, 2004-2014: A 10-Year Democratic Audit." The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference 67. (2014). http://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/sclr/vol67/iss1/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Osgoode Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in The uS preme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference by an authorized editor of Osgoode Digital Commons. Reforming the Supreme Court Appointment Process, 2004-2014: A 10-Year Democratic Audit* Adam M. Dodek** 2014 CanLIIDocs 33319 The way in which Justice Rothstein was appointed marks an historic change in how we appoint judges in this country. It brought unprecedented openness and accountability to the process. The hearings allowed Canadians to get to know Justice Rothstein through their members of Parliament in a way that was not previously possible.1 — The Rt. Hon. Stephen Harper, PC [J]udicial appointments … [are] a critical part of the administration of justice in Canada … This is a legacy issue, and it will live on long after those who have the temporary stewardship of this position are no longer there.
    [Show full text]
  • Gosselin V. Que´Bec (Attorney General)
    Gosselin v. Que´bec (Attorney General) Gwen Brodsky, Rachel Cox, Shelagh Day and Kate Stephenson Authors’ Note Some of the authors of this judgment have a history with Gosselin v. Quebec (Attorney General) that pre-dates the creation of the Women’s Court of Canada. Rachel Cox and Gwen Brodsky were co-counsel to the National Association of Women and the Law (NAWL) in its 2001 intervention in Gosselin at the Supreme Court of Canada. Shelagh Day was an advisor to NAWL’s legal team in that litigation. Kate Stephenson was not directly involved in the Gosselin case, but her work as a leading anti-poverty litigator makes her intimately familiar with the reasoning and outcome. Each of the authors has been affected by the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision. Rachel Cox, who lived in Montre´ al in the 1980s when the Social Aid Regulation reduced young people’s welfare benefit by two-thirds, felt keenly the gulf between the reality of the time and the Supreme Court of Canada’s characterization of the scheme as ‘‘an affirmation of [young people’s] potential’’ and dignity. For those living in Que´ bec in the 1980s, the reason for the reduced rate was clear: to save the government money. Even if people disagreed about whether that was right or wrong, no one believed at the time that the government had designed the scheme in a sincere effort to help young people on welfare. There was a recession and somebody had to pay. Simply put, the court case was about whether or not it was legal for the government to make already very poor welfare recipients pay so much of the cost.
    [Show full text]
  • Poverty Law and Society Series W
    Poverty Law and Society Series W. Wesley Pue, General Editor The Law and Society Series explores law as a socially embedded phenom- enon. It is premised on the understanding that the conventional division of law from society creates false dichotomies in thinking, scholarship, educational practice, and social life. Books in the series treat law and society as mutually constitutive and seek to bridge scholarship emerging from interdisciplinary engagement of law with disciplines such as politics, social theory, history, political economy, and gender studies. A list of the titles in this series is available at http://www.ubcpress.ca/books/ series_law.html Edited by Margot Young, Susan B. Boyd, Gwen Brodsky, and Shelagh Day Poverty: Rights, Social Citizenship, and Legal Activism © UBC Press 2007 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without prior written permission of the publisher, or, in Canada, in the case of photocopying or other reprographic copying, a licence from Access Copyright (Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency), www.accesscopyright.ca. 15 14 13 12 11 10 09 08 07 5 4 3 2 1 Printed in Canada on ancient-forest-free paper (100% post-consumer recycled) that is processed chlorine- and acid-free, with vegetable-based inks. Library and Archives Canada Cataloguing in Publication Poverty : rights, social citizenship, and legal activism / edited by Margot Young [et al.]. (Law and Society, ISSN 1496-4953) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-0-7748-1287-0 1. Public welfare – Law and legislation – Canada.
    [Show full text]
  • 37524 in the Supreme Court of Canada (On Appeal from the Court of Appeal for British Columbia)
    SCC Court File No: 37524 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA) B E T W E E N: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA APPELLANT (Appellant) - and - PHILIP MORRIS INTERNATIONAL, INC. RESPONDENT (Respondent) MOTION RECORD OF SAMUELSON-GLUSHKO CANADIAN INTERNET POLICY AND PUBLIC INTEREST CLINIC (Motion for leave to intervene) Pursuant to Rules 47 and 55 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada Samuelson-Glushko Canadian Internet Samuelson-Glushko Canadian Internet Policy & Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC) Policy & Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC) University of Ottawa, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa, Faculty of Law, Common Law Section Common Law Section 57 Louis Pasteur Street 57 Louis Pasteur Street Ottawa, ON, K1N 6N5 Ottawa, ON, K1N 6N5 David Fewer David Fewer Tel: (613) 562-5800 x 2558 Tel: (613) 562-5800 x 2558 Fax: (613) 562-5417 Fax: (613) 562-5417 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Counsel for the Proposed Intervener Agent for the Proposed Intervener TO: THE REGISTRAR COPY TO: SISKINDS LLP SUPREME ADVOCACY LLP 680 Waterloo Street 100-340 Gilmour Street PO Box 2520, Station B Ottawa, ON K2P 0R3 London, ON N6A 3V8 James D. Virtue Marie-France Major Tel: (519) 672-2121 Tel: (613) 695-8855 Ext: 102 Fax: (519) 672-6065 Fax: (613) 695-8580 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Counsel for the Appellant, Agent for the Appellant, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Her Majesty the Queen in Right of British Columbia British Columbia AND TO: McCARTHY TÉTRAULT LLP GOWLING WLG (CANADA) LLP Suite 2400, 745 Thurlow Street 160 Elgin Street, Suite 2600 Vancouver, BC, V6E 0C5 Ottawa, ON, K1P 1C3 Michael A.
    [Show full text]
  • Michel Bastarache's Language Rights Legacy
    The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference Volume 47 (2009) Article 13 Michel Bastarache’s Language Rights Legacy Michel Y. Hélie Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/sclr This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License. Citation Information Hélie, Michel Y.. "Michel Bastarache’s Language Rights Legacy." The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference 47. (2009). http://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/sclr/vol47/iss1/13 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Osgoode Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in The uS preme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference by an authorized editor of Osgoode Digital Commons. Michel Bastarache’s Language Rights Legacy Michel Y. Hélie I. CONQUEST TO CONFEDERATION On a battlefield almost 250 years ago, General Wolfe faced the Marquis de Montcalm and the dream of une Amérique française died. La Nouvelle-France, even then commonly known as Canada, became a British colony and the status of the language of Molière became uncertain, threatened and the source of conflict ever since. The constitutional status of the French language today in Canada, the direction in which it is headed, and the influence the Honourable Michel Bastarache has exerted over these issues is the subject of this paper. Although the intention of the British Empire to assimilate its newest acquisition is beyond doubt, the French fact, that is, the overwhelming majority of French-speaking inhabitants north of the American colonies, presented a significant challenge to achieving this goal.
    [Show full text]
  • Lifetime Achievement Award of the Anglophone Section of the Bar of Montreal
    « THE VOICE OF MONTREAL ENGLISH-SPEAKING LAWYERS » Vol.1, No 1 $4 Vincent O’Donnell Lifetime Titre Achievement Award of the Anglophone section of the Bar of Montreal Ian M. Solloway reelected as president of the English-speaking section of the Bar of Montreal Me Johanne Brodeur, Vincent O’Donnell of Lavery’s new Bâtonnier of Quebec Me Bernard Synnott of Fasken Martineau, elected vice-president The first ever award of the English-speaking Section of the Bar of Montreal The Lifetime Achievement Award to Lavery’s «iconic» figure Vincent O’Donnell In this packed room, the largest gathering of Anglophone lawyers of Montréal ever to attend the annual meeting remarked president Ian M. Solloway, joined prestigious guests to celebrate Vincent O’Donnell, whose career as a lawyer, litigator and mentor, has touched so many law students, «stagiaires», associates and partners as well as the leadership of Quebec and Montreal Bar over the years, this low-profile professional everybody had «in awe» as Don McCarty mentioned, who after aticling under Vincent O’Donnell, has become the partner in charge at Lavery’s. Bâtonniers, judges, justices were on hand to be part of this grandiose ceremony organized jointly by the English- speaking section and the Bâtonnière Catherine Pilon of Dentons and director general Doris Larrivée along with the uncontested president of the section, Me Ian M. Solloway. Here’s how Ian Solloway introduced with great pride Vincent O’Donnell : Vincent O’Donnell This past year the English-Speaking Section of the Bar of Montreal decided to create the first ever award to be pre- sented by our section in its over 160 year history – “The By André Gagnon Lifetime Achievement Award ”.
    [Show full text]
  • Interpreting the Charter with International Law: Pitfalls & Principles
    APPEAL VOLUME 19 n 105 Winner of the 2014 McCarthy Tétrault Law Journal Prize for Exceptional Writing ARTICLE INTERPRETING THE CHARTER WITH INTERNATIONAL LAW: PITFALLS & PRINCIPLES Benjamin Oliphant* CITED: (2014) 19 Appeal 105–129 INTRODUCTION While the use of international human rights law in Canadian courts is not an entirely novel phenomenon,1 there is little doubt that it has become more prevalent in the Supreme Court of Canada’s jurisprudence.2 Far from being treated “as some exotic branch of the law, to be avoided if at all possible,”3 the courts have come to embrace international law and human rights norms, notably in the course of defining the guarantees found in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the “Charter”).4 Indeed, more than simply being considered among various aids to interpretation, it is often said that the Charter must be presumed to provide at least as much protection as international human rights law and norms, particularly those binding treaties that served as its inspiration.5 However, as I aim to show below, the Court has so far used international human rights law inconsistently and imprecisely in the process of Charter interpretation, exhibiting * The author would like to thank the Appeal Editorial Board for their diligent work and helpful suggestions throughout the process, and Judith Oliphant for her editorial assistance and unwavering support. Special thanks are also owed to Professor Brian Langille, who has been a constant source of encouragement and with whom many of these ideas below were initially developed. 1 See e.g. R v Shindler, [1944] AJ No 11, 82 CCC 206; R v Brosig, [1944] 2 DLR 232, 83 CCC 199; and R v Kaehler and Stolski, [1945] 3 DLR 272, 83 CCC 353.
    [Show full text]
  • 2007 Annual Report
    “Protecting the constitutional freedoms of Canadians through education and public interest litigation.” 2007 Annual Report 2 A Message from the Executive Director Starting with just one court case in 2005, the Canadian Constitution Foundation (CCF) has experi- enced phenomenal growth in 2006 and 2007. Since 2005, the CCF has: • Supported Chief Mountain’s fight for his equality rights as a Canadian in the face of an un- constitutional “Third Order” of government created by the Nisga’a Agreement (see page 14); • Intervened on behalf of taxpayers in Kingstreet Investments v. New Brunswick, in which the Supreme Court of Canada adopted the CCF’s argument that governments be held account- able for illegal taxation (see page 7); • Supported the constitutional challenge to Ontario’s ban on private health insurance, brought by Shona Holmes and Lindsay McCreith as they assert their right to access essential health care services outside of the Ontario Government’s monopoly (see pages 10 and 11); • Represented the Japanese Canadian Fishermens Association as it intervened before the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Kapp, a constitutional challenge to race-based commercial fisheries in B.C. (see page 13); and • Supported Doug Gould’s fight for racial equality on the Queen Charlotte Islands (see page 13). In addition to these court interventions, the CCF released “Judging the Judges” in April of 2007, just prior to the 25th anniversary of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. “Judging the Judges” assesses Supreme Court of Canada judges in upholding individual and economic freedom, and equality before the law. This study examines cases which have a direct impact on the individual and economic freedom of citizens, and their equality before the law.
    [Show full text]