From Democracy To Judicial Dictatorship In Canada

FROM DEMOCRACY TOJUDICIAL DICTATORSHIP IN CANADA:THE UNTOLD STORY OF THE CHARTER OF RIGHTSCanada has been profoundly changed since our Constitution, including the Charter of Rights, came to be patriated in 1982. This took place without any national referendum or public support.The 1982 Patriation caused the transfer of power from the elected federal Parliament and provincial Legislatures which are accountable to the public, to nonelected, unaccountable judges sitting on the Supreme Court of Canada. The judiciary now make, without public input or accountability, fundamental decisions affecting our daily lives.From Democracy to Judicial Dictatorship in Canada reveals how this dramatic change came about. Based on documentary evidence, the authors disclose how Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau: An ardent socialist, became a member of the Liberal Party of Canada solely to use it as a platform to change Canada's Constitution according to his directions.Had no respect for the elected Members of Parliament, and preferred that elitist appointed judges make fundamental decisions, using the Charter as their tool to reshape Canadian values and society. Engaged in obnoxious behaviour deliberately misleading the public about the purpose and effect of his proposed Charter of Rights.Canadian judges have used the Charter to expand their role and influence, contrary to the clear intent of the drafters of the Charter. Time and again, judges have thrown aside judicial restraint, abandoned legal merit and precedent as the basis of their decisions, and instead have applied their own political ideology in reaching their decisions. They have now become the most powerful individuals in Canadian history.These startling events are examined through a critique of a number of Supreme Court of Canada and lower court cases, and the apparent mentality of the judges who believe that they are personally qualified to decide "what is best for Canadians."This book provides the reader with a three part assessment of our current state of constitutional crisis. The first part is a survey of the politics that went into the 1982 patriation of Canada's Constitution. The second, the loss of Parliamentary sovereignty and the rise of judicial activism. In the third part, the authors make the case that reform is not only necessary but possible. Both the courts and Parliament must actively seek to re-balance their respective roles based on principles of responsible government and electoral accountability, to ensure that Canada, once again, becomes strong and free, rooted in the consent of the governed.

Canada has been profoundly changed since our Constitution, including the Charter of Rights, came to be patriated in 1982. This took place without any national referendum or public support.The 1982 Patriation caused the transfer of power from the elected federal Parliament and provincial Legislatures which are accountable to the public, to nonelected, unaccountable judges sitting on the Supreme Court of Canada. The judiciary now make, without public input or accountability, fundamental decisions affecting our daily lives.From Democracy to Judicial Dictatorship in Canada reveals how this dramatic change came about. Based on documentary evidence, the authors disclose how Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau: An ardent socialist, became a member of the Liberal Party of Canada solely to use it as a platform to change Canada's Constitution according to his directions.Had no respect for the elected Members of Parliament, and preferred that elitist appointed judges make fundamental decisions, using the Charter as their tool to reshape Canadian values and society. Engaged in obnoxious behaviour deliberately misleading the public about the purpose and effect of his proposed Charter of Rights.Canadian judges have used the Charter to expand their role and influence, contrary to the clear intent of the drafters of the Charter. Time and again, judges have thrown aside judicial restraint, abandoned legal merit and precedent as the basis of their decisions, and instead have applied their own political ideology in reaching their decisions. They have now become the most powerful individuals in Canadian history.These startling events are examined through a critique of a number of Supreme Court of Canada and lower court cases, and the apparent mentality of the judges who believe that they are personally qualified to decide "what is best for Canadians."This book provides the reader with a three part assessment of our current state of constitutional crisis. The first part is a survey of the politics that went into the 1982 patriation of Canada's Constitution. The second, the loss of Parliamentary sovereignty and the rise of judicial activism. In the third part, the authors make the case that reform is not only necessary but possible. Both the courts and Parliament must actively seek to re-balance their respective roles based on principles of responsible government and electoral accountability, to ensure that Canada, once again, becomes strong and free, rooted in the consent of the governed.

The controversy raises challenging questions about the role of a powerful judiciary in a democracy. In Judicial Power and Canadian Democracy, a series of essays commissioned by the Institute for Research on Public Policy, some of Canada's foremost commentators - academics, politicians, and Supreme Court judges themselves - take up the debate. Some tangle over the pivotal question: should judges have the decisive say on issues involving entrenched rights that have profound implication for the policy preferences of elected bodies? Others examine related issues, including Supreme Court appointment procedures, interest group litigation, the historical roots of the notwithstanding clause, and the state of public opinion on Canada's courts. Those interested in the power of the judicial branch will find much in this collection to stimulate fresh thinking on issues that are likely to remain on the public agenda for years to come. Contributors include Joseph F. Fletcher (Toronto), Janet Hiebert (Queen's), Gregory Hein (Toronto), Peter W. Hogg (York), Paul Howe, Rainer Knopff (Calgary), Sébastien Lebel-Grenier (Sherbrooke), Howard Leeson (Regina), Kate Malleson (London School of Economics), E. Preston Manning (Reform Party of Canada), Hon. Beverley McLachlin (Supreme Court of Canada), F.L. Morton (Calgary), Pierre Patenaude (Sherbrooke), Peter Russell, Allison A. Thornton (Blake, Cassels and Graydon), Frederick Vaughan (emeritus, Guelph), Lorraine Eisenstat Weinrib (Toronto), Hon. Bertha Wilson (emeritus, Supreme Court of Canada), and Jacob Ziegel (Toronto).

Against Judicial Activism cites numerous cases to support this argument. For instance, the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal and Supreme Court read a ban on discrimination on the ground of transsexualism as being part of the province's human rights code. On the basis of this revision of the law, the tribunal ordered the Vancouver Rape Relief Society to pay $7,500 to a transsexual man in compensation for refusing to admit him into a training course for rape crisis counsellors.

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).

In this book the author argues that judicial activism in respect of the protection of human rights and dignity and the right to due process is an essential element of the democratic rule of law in a constitutional democracy as opposed to being ‘judicial overreach’. Selected recent case law is explored from the US and Canadian Supreme Courts as well as the European Court of Human Rights illustrating that these Courts have, at times, engaged in judicial activism in the service of providing equal protection of the law and due process to the powerless but have, on other occasions, employed legalistic but insupportable strategies to sidestep that obligation.The book will be of interest to those with a deep concern regarding the factors that influence judicial decision-making and the judiciary's role through judgments in promoting and preserving the underpinnings of democracy. This includes legal researchers, the judiciary, practicing counsel and legal academics and law students as well as those in the area of democracy studies, in addition to scholars in the fields of sociology and philosophy of law.

Manfredi's knowledge of US as well as Canadian constitutional law and of the theoretical foundation of liberalism brings depth and breadth to his discussion of the current imbalance of power. Annotation copyright Book News, Inc. Portland, Or.