27
1 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 02 JUDICIAL REVIEW AND CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION Shigenori Matsui

1 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 02 JUDICIAL REVIEW AND CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION Shigenori Matsui

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: 1 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 02 JUDICIAL REVIEW AND CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION Shigenori Matsui

1

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

02 JUDICIAL REVIEW AND CONSTITUTIONAL

INTERPRETATION Shigenori Matsui

Page 2: 1 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 02 JUDICIAL REVIEW AND CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION Shigenori Matsui

2

INTRODUCTION

The Supreme Court of Canada Legitimacy of Judicial Review How should the Constitution be Interpreted? What kind of role unwritten constitutional

principles should play?

Page 3: 1 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 02 JUDICIAL REVIEW AND CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION Shigenori Matsui

3

I The Supreme Court of Canada

S. 101 of the Constitution Act, 1867, authorized the Parliament “to provide for the constitution, maintenance, and organization of a general court of appeal for Canada.”

The Parliament enacted the Supreme Court Act in 1875 and established the Supreme Court of Canada.

Page 4: 1 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 02 JUDICIAL REVIEW AND CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION Shigenori Matsui

4

Page 5: 1 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 02 JUDICIAL REVIEW AND CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION Shigenori Matsui

5

At the time of the establishment, the Supreme Court of Canada was not exactly a final court for Canada: it was possible to appeal to the Privy Council in U.K.

Page 6: 1 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 02 JUDICIAL REVIEW AND CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION Shigenori Matsui

6

Attempt to abolish the appeal to the Privy Council and make the Supreme Court of Canada the final court for Canada

Page 7: 1 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 02 JUDICIAL REVIEW AND CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION Shigenori Matsui

7

The Supreme Court of Canada comprises of Chief Justice and eight associate Justices. The total number of Justices is nine.

By statute, three must be chosen from Quebec. By convention, three must be chosen from Ontario, two from Western provinces, and one from Atlantic provinces.

Page 8: 1 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 02 JUDICIAL REVIEW AND CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION Shigenori Matsui

8

Page 9: 1 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 02 JUDICIAL REVIEW AND CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION Shigenori Matsui

9

The justices are appointed by the Governor General in Council.

Each appointee must be a judge of provincial superior court or must have at least ten-years experience at the bar of the province

Page 10: 1 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 02 JUDICIAL REVIEW AND CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION Shigenori Matsui

10

Page 11: 1 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 02 JUDICIAL REVIEW AND CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION Shigenori Matsui

11

Quorum is five judges. Majority of cases are heard by nine judges but sometimes cases are heard by five or seven judges.

Page 12: 1 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 02 JUDICIAL REVIEW AND CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION Shigenori Matsui

12

The Supreme Court of Canada has an appellate jurisdiction throughout Canada: it could hear and decide issue on provincial law as well.

Page 13: 1 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 02 JUDICIAL REVIEW AND CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION Shigenori Matsui

13

Page 14: 1 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 02 JUDICIAL REVIEW AND CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION Shigenori Matsui

14

Jurisdiction In civil and criminal cases, the leave to appeal

must be issued.

In criminal cases, the appeal as of right is possible if there is a dissent in the decision of the court of appeal.

Governor General can refer the important question of law to the Supreme Court of Canada

Page 15: 1 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 02 JUDICIAL REVIEW AND CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION Shigenori Matsui

15

The judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada is binding upon the case. It will become a precedent for other courts to follow.

Page 16: 1 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 02 JUDICIAL REVIEW AND CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION Shigenori Matsui

16

S. 33 of the Constitution Act, 1982, allows the override in some Charter cases.

Page 17: 1 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 02 JUDICIAL REVIEW AND CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION Shigenori Matsui

17

II LEGITIMACY OF JUDICIAL REVIEW

Why can the courts review the constitutionality of legislation?

Compare with Marbury v. Madison

Page 18: 1 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 02 JUDICIAL REVIEW AND CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION Shigenori Matsui

18

Text of the Constitution Act, 1867 or the Constitution Act, 1982?

Framers’ intent?

Necessity of judicial review?

Page 19: 1 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 02 JUDICIAL REVIEW AND CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION Shigenori Matsui

19

How can we justify judicial review in light of the democracy principle of the Constitution?

Democracy is nor a cardinal principle of the Constitution?

Democracy needs accomplishment of substantive values?

Page 20: 1 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 02 JUDICIAL REVIEW AND CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION Shigenori Matsui

20

Does constitutionalism, rule of law, or protection of rights of minorities justify judicial review?

Page 21: 1 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 02 JUDICIAL REVIEW AND CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION Shigenori Matsui

21

Sufficient public supervision over unelected judges?

Dialogue theory?

Page 22: 1 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 02 JUDICIAL REVIEW AND CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION Shigenori Matsui

22

III HOW SHOULD THE CONSTITUTION BE INTERPRETED ?

Edwards v. AG for Canada (1929)

The living tree doctrine

Page 23: 1 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 02 JUDICIAL REVIEW AND CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION Shigenori Matsui

23

Is it the role of the courts to change the meaning of the Constitution to respond to the social change?

How could the courts update the meaning of the Constitution?

Page 24: 1 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 02 JUDICIAL REVIEW AND CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION Shigenori Matsui

24

Interpretivism v. Noninterpretivism

Originalism v. Nonoriginalism

Page 25: 1 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 02 JUDICIAL REVIEW AND CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION Shigenori Matsui

25

Where should the judges look to when they interpret the Constitution?

Page 26: 1 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 02 JUDICIAL REVIEW AND CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION Shigenori Matsui

26

IV UNWRITTEN PRINCIPLES

Could the courts rely upon unwritten principles to review the constitutionality?

Page 27: 1 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 02 JUDICIAL REVIEW AND CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION Shigenori Matsui

27

Rule of law principle Roncarelli v. Duplessis [1959]

Reference re Manitoba Language Rights [1985]

BC v. Imperial Tobacco Canada [2005]

British Columbia v. Christie, [2007]