1) 8aslc Lheorles of law

Cralk 8eadlng

8ackgrounds CompeLlng approaches/Lheorles affecL [udlclal declslon maklng and legal ouLcomes 1hey
each offer compelllng argumenLs as Lo Lhe baslc naLure orlgln auLhorlLy and responslblllLy of Lhe law



oslLlvlsm and naLural Law

8oLh legal poslLlvlsm and naLural law are descrlpLlve Lheorles ln LhaL Lhey are prlnclpally concerned
wlLh ldenLlfylng whaL law ls as opposed Lo whaL Lhe law oughL Lo be 8oLh poslLlvlsm and naLural law
are concerned wlLh concepLs of law and [usLlce even lf Lhey dlverge as Lo how Lhe Lwo relaLe Lo one
anoLher 8oLh are largely based on WesLern llberal ldeas abouL law and socleLy



Legal poslLlvlsm reflecLs Lhe bellef LhaL law ls noLhlng more Lhan Lhe rules and prlnclples LhaL acLually
govern or regulaLe socleLy (laws are made by human belngs) lnslsLs on separaLlon beLween law and
morallLy focuses on descrlblng laws wlLhouL reference Lo [usLness/leglLlmacy/falrness Legal poslLlvlsm
ls only concerned wlLh whaL ls legally valld noL whaL ls morally valld 1he common slogan of legal
poslLlvlsLs ls Lhe exlsLence of a law ls one Lhlng lL's merlL or demerlL ls anoLher" 1hus on Lhls vlew Lhe
nazls had a legal sysLem used for evll ends and Lhe 8rlLlsh had a legal sysLem used for good ends boLh
however were legally valld See eg noble and Wolf and noLe how [udge appeals Lo Lhe CL81Aln1? of
poslLlvlsm and Lhe lack of cerLalnLy of relylng on publlc pollcy and morallLy



naLural law Lheory ls asplraLlonal ln LhaL laws are only Lhose rules whlch adhere Lo cerLaln moral
LruLhs mosL ofLen of a unlversal and lmmuLable naLure le law's legal auLhorlLy depends upon an
exLernal moral sLandard LhaL holds across all socleLles See urummond Wren and noLe how [udge
appeals Lo our moral consclence



lemlnlsL erspecLlves on Law crlLlcal legal Lheory

A normaLlve Lheory seeklng Lo descrlbe how exlsLlng laws fall Lo achleve an exLernal ob[ecLlve

lemlnlsL perspecLlve on law reflecLs a crlLlque of llberallsm as a pollLlcal ldeology laws LhaL exlsLed
from 17Lh cenLury dld noL normally respond Lo Lhe needs of women and even alded ln Lhelr oppresslon
lemlnlsm Lakes lssue wlLh Lhe llberal basls of law and lLs relaLlonshlp Lo [usLlce and aLLempLs Lo
esLabllsh a dlfferenL vlslon of whaL [usLlce mlghL be

Larly formallsL femlnlsm aLLempLed Lo replace laws LhaL favoured men w/ more gender neuLral laws

ConLemporary femlnlsm conslsLs of dlfferenL secLs wlLh dlfferenL bellefs lL ls a more complex
movemenL relylng on varlous dlsclpllnes such as crlmlnology and soclology

Lhe general glsL of femlnlsm ls LhaL Lhe legal sysLem ls seen as paLernallsLlc and malecenLred

1he sub[ecL of aborLlon provldes a good forum Lo examlne how femlnlsL Lheory may LranslaLe lnLo
pracLlce (see MorganLeler ln Lhls case on Lhe consLlLuLlonallLy of Lhe aborLlon resLrlcLlons Lhe ma[orlLy
found Lhem unconsLlLuLlonal on procedural grounds !usLlce Wllson however wroLe a concurrlng
oplnlon focuslng on much more femlnlsL" Loplcs such as rlghLs ln a wlder soclal conLexL Lhe female
experlence and far more emoLlonal lssues)



CrlLlcal Legal SLudles crlLlcal legal Lheory

Llke some forms of femlnlsm crlLlcal legal sLudles ls a radlcal alLernaLlve Lo esLabllshed legal Lheorles
re[ecLs LhaL Lhere ls any klnd of naLural legal order dlscoverable by ob[ecLlve means

CLS ls a dlrecL aLLack on LradlLlonal legal Lheory scholarshlp and educaLlon

1he CLS movemenL can be very Lheorydrlven and densely phllosophlcal

CLS llke Lhe femlnlsL perspecLlve Lakes lssue wlLh Lhe llberal basls of law and lLs relaLlonshlp Lo [usLlce
and aLLempLs Lo esLabllsh a dlfferenL vlslon of whaL [usLlce mlghL be

1he llberal bellef LhaL law should be cerLaln and naLural ls for CLS scholars lllusory Law reproduces
Lhe oppresslve characLerlsLlc of conLemporary WesLern socleLles

3 sLages governlng Lhe appllcaLlon of CLS ldeas (1) Pegemonlc consclousness WesLern laws are
malnLalned by a sysLem of bellefs LhaL have Lhelr foundaLlon ln a llberal markeL drlven economy whlch
reflecL lnLeresLs of a domlnanL class (2) 8elflcaLlon 1he bellefs LhaL malnLaln WesLern laws are
presenLed as essenLlal and ob[ecLlve and Lhe laws LhaL prop up Lhls bellef sysLem necessary follow sulL
becomlng equally lnconLroverLlble (3) uenlal Laws and legal Lhlnklng ald ln Lhe denlal of real LruLhs

See 8 v 8uS Compare how Lhe [udges ln Lhls case dealL wlLh Lhe lssue of race wlLh Lhe [udges ln 8e
urummond Wren and 8e noble and Wolf



Law and Lconomlcs

Law and economlcs Lheorles look aL law dlfferenLly less grounded ln moral Lheory and more ln ldeas
abouL efflclency (as opposed Lo femlnlsm whlch deals wlLh produclng equallLy) law and economlcs
scholars have applled economlc analysls Lo explaln varlous areas of law

1he LradlLlonal law and economlcs approach applles economlcs meLhodology Lo legal rules ln order Lo
assess wheLher Lhe rules wlll resulL ln ouLcomes LhaL are efflclenL

1he economlc Lheory of regulaLlon or publlc cholce Lheory applles baslc economlc Lheory ln an
aLLempL Lo undersLand publlc pollcy lL aLLempLs Lo explaln governmenL lnLervenLlon as a correcLlve Lo
markeL fallure 1he Lheory seeks Lo undersLand why some governmenL programs seems Lo run counLer
Lo Lhe publlc good or aL leasL do noL maxlmlze Lhe publlc good 1hls Lheory says LhaL pollcy makers (eg
leglslaLors) acL ln order Lo maxlmlze pollLlcal supporL Lhey are noL necessarlly aLLempLlng Lo maxlmlze
soclal welfare and are moLlvaLed by self lnLeresL

See uuncan LsLaLe v 8addeley (1hls case dealL wlLh Lhe lssue of how Lo calculaLe damages for an esLaLe
arlslng ouL of a negllgence acLlon for wrongful deaLh Should fuLure earnlngs be lncluded or noL? Whlle
Lhe courL dld noL do any expllclL calculaLlons or economlc reasonlng Lhere was a clear subLexL LhaL Lhe
[udge had Lo conslder Lhe wlder soclaleconomlc lmpllcaLlons of allowlng for recovery of fuLure earnlngs
or noL) 8hadaurla v 8oard of Covernors (publlc cholce Lheory behlnd Lhe CourL of Appeals declslon Lhe
CourL recognlsed on publlc pollcy grounds a new LorL of dlscrlmlnaLlon" 8uL aL Lhe Supreme CourL
level Lhls ldea was re[ecLed Lhls ldea of a new economlc LorL"

noLe Cne of Lhe Lhemes ln publlc law ls Lo show how common law has been dlsplaced by pollcy
formaLlon (ln Lhe form of leglslaLlon) as Lhe prlmary means of soclal regulaLlon A number of lmporLanL
quesLlons lle aL Lhe hearL of Lhls analysls (1) WhaL ln economlc Lerms ls Lhe problem LhaL a legal rule or
sLrucLure ls aLLempLlng Lo resolve? WhaL effecL does Lhls rule have on socleLy? Why do we have Lhe laws
LhaL we have? Should we have dlfferenL laws?



Cases



Plll v Church of SclenLology

lAC1S Plll ls a prosecuLor ln 1oronLo sulng Lhe Church of SclenLology as a prlvaLe lndlvldual Plll
broughL a common law llbel acLlon based on allegedly false sLaLemenLs Lhe church made abouL hlm

lSSuL ls Lhe CharLer appllcable Lo a prlvaLe acLlon based on a common law LorL? ls Lhe common law
LorL of defamaLlon lnconslsLenL wlLh Lhe CharLer (s 2b)?

8LASCnlnC rlvaLe parLles owe each oLher no consLlLuLlonal duLles and cannoL found Lhelr cause of
acLlon upon a CharLer rlghL 1he parLy challenglng Lhe common law cannoL allege LhaL Lhe common law
vlolaLes a CharLer rlghL because qulLe slmply CharLer rlghLs do noL exLend ln Lhe absence of sLaLe
acLlon 1he mosL LhaL Lhe llLlganL can do ls argue LhaL Lhe common law ls lnconslsLenL wlLh CharLer
values 1he parLy who ls alleglng LhaL Lhe common law ls lnconslsLenL wlLh Lhe CharLer should bear Lhe
onus of provlng boLh LhaL Lhe common law falls Lo comply wlLh CharLer values and LhaL when Lhese
values are balanced LhaL Lhe common law should be modlfled" So lL ls up Lo Lhe parLy challenglng Lhe
common law Lo bear Lhe burden of provlng noL only LhaL Lhe common law ls lnconslsLenL wlLh Lhe
CharLer values buL also LhaL lLs provlslons cannoL be [usLlfled

PLLu Lven Lhough prlvaLe parLles owe each oLher no consLlLuLlonal duLles and cannoL found a cause
of acLlon upon a CharLer rlghL Lhe CourL concluded LhaL Lhe common law LorL of defamaLlon reflecLed
an approprlaLe balance beLween freedom of expresslon values and Lhe leglslaLlve ob[ecLlves underlylng
Lhe law As such Lhere was no need Lo amend or alLer Lhe leglslaLlon

8A1lC Lven Lhough CharLer doesn'L apply dlrecLly Lo Lhls acLlon Common law should be lnLerpreLed
wlLh reference Lo CharLer values (as per oblLer ln uolphln) lf common law ls lnconslsLenL wlLh CharLer
values and noL [usLlflable Lhe common law should be modlfled





SocleLe de l'assurance auLomoblle du Cuebec v Cyr

lAC1S ursuanL Lo s 320 of Lhe Plghway SafeLy Code (PSC) 1he SocleLe de lassurance auLomoblle du
Cuebec (SAAC) enLered lnLo a conLracL wlLh Lhe CenLre de verlflcaLlon mecanlque de MonLreal (CvMM)
Lo carry ouL Lhe mechanlcal lnspecLlon of road vehlcles Accordlng Lo Lhls conLracL Cyr an employee of
CvMM was deslgnaLed as an accredlLed mechanlc for Lhe purpose of Lhe SAACs vehlcle lnspecLlon
program Powever followlng noLlces of breach for fallure Lo apply Lhe approprlaLe sLandards durlng
cerLaln lnspecLlons Cyrs accredlLaLlon was revoked by SAAC Cyr and CvMM flled a moLlon for [udlclal
revlew of Lhe declslon Lo revoke Lhe accredlLaLlon clalmlng LhaL lL had noL been rendered ln a manner
conslsLenL wlLh Lhe AcL respecLlng admlnlsLraLlve [usLlce (AA!) 1he Superlor CourL concluded LhaL Lhe
acLlons of Lhe SAAC ln sendlng Lhe noLlces of breach and subsequenL revocaLlon of accredlLaLlon were
an exerclse of conLracLual rlghLs and dlsmlssed Lhe appllcaLlon 1he ma[orlLy of Lhe CourL of Appeal seL
aslde Lhe declslon holdlng LhaL Cyr had Lhe rlghL Lo procedural falrness and LhaL Lhe exlsLence of a
conLracL could noL be used by Lhe SAAC Lo avold Lhe obllgaLlons codlfled by s 3 of Lhe AA! lSSuLS
WheLher a governmenL body wlll avold publlc law duLles when delegaLlng lLs funcLlons by way of
conLracL or oLher form of agreemenL 8LASCnlnC Cyr ls enLlLled Lo procedural falrness under s 3 AA! as
hls deslgnaLlon as an accredlLed mechanlc for Lhe purposes of Lhe SAACs mechanlcal lnspecLlon
program consLlLuLes an admlnlsLraLlve auLhorlzaLlon Cyr cannoL be consldered a parLy Lo Lhe conLracL
because under Lhls conLracL CvMM ls Lhe mandaLary of Lhe SAAC noL Cyr uelegaLlons of governmenL
power are auLhorlzaLlons ln delegaLlng Lo Cyr Lhe power Lo conducL vehlcle lnspecLlons Lhe SAAC was
granLlng hlm Lhe auLhorlzaLlon Lo acL on lLs behalf Moreover Lhe auLhorlzaLlon ln Lhe presenL case ls
speclflcally provlded for ln s 320 of Lhe PSC 1he leglslaLlve orlgln of Lhe auLhorlzaLlon furLher conflrms
lLs admlnlsLraLlve naLure ConsequenLly secLlon 3 of Lhe AA! and lLs procedural requlremenLs are
appllcable Lo Lhe presenL maLLer because (1) Lhe revocaLlon of Cyrs deslgnaLlon ls a declslon
concernlng a permlL or llcence or oLher auLhorlzaLlon of llke naLure and (2) Cyr ls a clLlzen as
conLemplaLed by Lhe AA! noL all acLs of Lhe SAAC are sub[ecL Lo publlc law buL Lhe acL of auLhorlzaLlon
has speclflcally been deemed worLhy of procedural falrness proLecLlon by Lhe leglslaLure PLLu Appeal
dlsmlssed CCMMLn1 1hls case dlsLlngulshes beLween Lhe appllcablllLy of publlc and prlvaLe law 1he
dlssenL held LhaL Lhe parLles are bound by conLracL slnce Lhe SAAC chose Lo use a conLracL Lo appolnL
Lhe persons auLhorlzed Lo conducL Lhe mechanlcal lnspecLlon



ArLlcles



uavld 1anovlch 1he CharLer of WhlLeness 1wenLyflve years of MalnLalnlng 8aclal ln[usLlce ln Lhe
Canadlan Crlmlnal !usLlce SysLem" lnLroducLlon As we reflecL on Lhe 23 year annlversary of Lhe CharLer
much wlll be wrlLLen abouL Lhe lmpacL Lhls documenL has had on Lhose llvlng on Lhe margln Pas Lhe
CharLer glven any hope Lo Aborlglnal and raclallzed communlLles? Whlle Lhere ls reason Lo be opLlmlsLlc
abouL Lhe posslblllLles for fuLure reform Lhe CharLer Lo daLe has had very llLLle lmpacL on raclal ln[usLlce
ln Canada We conLlnue Lo lncarceraLe Aborlglnals and Afrlcan Canadlans aL alarmlng raLes raclal
proflllng aL our borders and ln our sLreeLs flourlshes 1he uLlllLy of uslng llLlgaLlon Lo address raclal
ln[usLlce Successful llLlgaLlon brlngs wlLh lL conslderable aLLenLlon medla communlLy organlzaLlons
eLc and can help ralse publlc consclousness sLlmulaLe academlc research and pollLlcal acLlon And one
of Lhe mosL lmporLanL pollLlcal responses could be Lhe collecLlon of daLa whlch wlll reveal Lhe exLenL and
scope of raclal ln[usLlce Absence of any raclal proflllng leglslaLlon and Lhe passlng of AnLl 1errorlsm
LeglslaLlon and Lhe ConservaLlve Crlmlnal Code amendmenLs all of Lhls has had a dlsproporLlonaLe
lmpacL on raclallzed communlLles So CharLer llLlgaLlon remalns as lmporLanL means of addresslng
fundamenLal ln[usLlce Whlle l place conslderable rellance on CharLer llLlgaLlon Lo address raclal
ln[usLlce Lhere ls no quesLlon LhaL oLher legal and exLralegal sLraLegles are necessary ln order Lo ensure
lmplemenLaLlon of Lhe changes and Lo flll Lhe gaps when llLlgaLlon falls AnLlraclsL Lralnlng for all
crlmlnal [usLlce acLors Lhe creaLlon of monlLorlng sysLems Lhe creaLlon of more anLlraclsL acLors eLc are
all examples of sLraLegles LhaL can work LogeLher wlLh llLlgaLlon" 1he problem ls noL wlLh Lhe CharLer buL
wlLh Lhose who argue and lnLerpreL lL narrow approaches Lo [udlclal revlew and lack of [udlclal
lmaglnaLlon have played a role ln llmlLlng Lhe lmpacL of CharLer llLlgaLlon on raclal ln[usLlce ln a
number of key cases addresslng lssues such as ball (because blacks are more llkely Lo be deLalned) [ury
selecLlon (because blacks are less llkely Lo be found on [urles) Lhe use of perempLory challenges and
raclal proflllng courLs have refused Lo adopL crlLlcal race sLandards or argumenLs when Lhey were
advanced See eg 8 v an 8 v Sawyer Sawyer who ls WhlLe was Lrled LogeLher wlLh CalbralLh
who ls 8lack on a charge of assaulL lollowlng Lhe convlcLlon a [uror conLacLed Sawyer and Lold hlm
LhaL she had been under undue pressure Lo come Lo a verdlcL and LhaL cerLaln raclal commenLs were
made by oLher members of Lhe [ury" 1he accused argued LhaL Lhe common law [ury secrecy rule
needed Lo be alLered under secLlon 7 of Lhe CharLer Lo ensure LhaL verdlcLs were noL LalnLed by raclsm
1he argumenL was re[ecLed Also ln a number of cases Lrlal [udges have been or appeared hosLlle
when asked Lo ad[udlcaLe a race lssue Lg ln 8 v 8rown 8 was asked by Lhe [udge Lo apologlze Lo Lhe
offlcer for ralslng raclal proflllng SomeLlmes hosLlllLy can be lmplled from Lhe reasonlng employed by
Lhe CourL Lo dlsmlss Lhe argumenL 1he relevanL lnsLances of [udlclal relucLance and hosLlllLy cerLalnly
Lend Lo conflrm Lhe Lheory LhaL Lhe composlLlon of Lhe [udlclary and lnherenL conservaLlsm of [udlclal
revlew are some of Lhe blggesL hurdles ln uslng llLlgaLlon as a pollLlcal Lool of change WlLh respecL Lo
llLlgaLlon Lhere has been a largescale fallure of Lrlal lawyers Lo ralse race once crlLlcal race sLandards
have been esLabllshed by Lhe courLs Why are Lrlal lawyers noL ralslng race when lL ls approprlaLe Lo do
so? Lg small number of raclal proflllng cases llLlgaLed followlng Lhe 8 v 8rown declslon 8ace ls noL
belng ralsed because some lawyers are noL seelng Lhe lssue whlle oLhers are uncomforLable engaglng ln
race Lalk before courLs AppellaLe lawyers ofLen fall Lo ralse Lhe lssue of race on appeal 1he SCC has yeL
Lo deal wlLh Lhe raclal proflllng lssue And Lhey face Lhe hurdle of noL havlng a record from whlch Lo
work (le race lssues may noL be ralsed aL Lhe Lrlal level) Concluslon 1hls refusal of [udges Lo acL and lack
of race consclousness by lawyers are havlng a dlrecL lmpacL on Lhe ablllLy of Lhe CharLer Lo remedy
raclal ln[usLlce 1he Lwo brlghL spoLs have been racebased challenges for cause and Lhe recognlLlon of
Lhe exlsLence of raclal proflllng by our courLs 8uL even ln Lhese areas Lhere ls sLlll room for
lmprovemenL



8osLam !osef neuwlrLh lnLernaLlonal Law and Lhe ubllc/rlvaLe Law ulsLlncLlon" 8ackground 1he role
of law ls Lo provlde rules Lo coordlnaLe reclprocal behavlour amongsL varlous members of a soclal
order ln order Lo avold confllcLs or deLrlmenLal effecLs amongsL Lhese members A law ls an aLLempL Lo
formulaLe a norm wlLh Lhe use of absLracL wordlng LhaL governs Lhe broadesL area of llfe posslble lL ls
Lhe llldeflned noLlon of lnLernaLlonal law LhaL ls called Lo face Lhe challenge of a menaclng dlsorder
spreadlng over Lhe emerglng lnLernaLlonal communlLy 1he Lwo caLegorles of publlc lnLernaLlonal and
prlvaLe lnLernaLlonal law are mosL llkely Lo fulfll Lhls funcLlon ln Lhe emerglng lnLernaLlonal communlLy
ubllc lnLernaLlonal law or Lhe law of Lhe naLlons" ls deflned as Lhe sysLem of law governlng Lhe
relaLlons beLween sLaLes rlvaLe lnLernaLlonal law or Lhe confllcL of laws" ls a sysLem coordlnaLlng
Lhe dlfferenL laws from dlfferenL counLrles and lL responds Lo Lhe quesLlon of appllcablllLy of forelgn or
domesLlc law wlLhln domesLlc courLs ln Lhe presenL Llme complex lnLeracLlons beLween sLaLes and
prlvaLe lndlvlduals occurs and harmony beLween publlc and prlvaLe lnLernaLlonal law cannoL be
conflrmed anymore 1he decllne of sLaLe soverelgnLy and Lhe lncreaslng lnsufflclency of a pure
poslLlvlsL Lheory of law Lo explaln phenomena on Lhe legal plane are Lwo examples of how global
change has shaLLered Lhe fundamenLs of docLrlnal Lhlnklng on whlch Lhe classlcal docLrlne was bullL



Legal plurallsm and legal polycenLrlclLy ln lnLernaLlonal law 1he world communlLy of Loday ls formed by
a greaL number of dlverse socleLles each pollLlcal socleLy has lLs own law whlch ls based on lLs own
LradlLlonal rellglous culLural or soclal values 1he flrsL sLeps ln Lhe recognlLlon of Lhe dlverslLy of Lhe
world communlLy are found ln Lhe Lerms of legal plurallsm and legal polycenLrlclLy repudlaLlng boLh
Lhe presumpLlon of Lhe sole exlsLence of one LoLal legal order and a slngle value approach Lo law
Cconslderlng Lhe very naLure and raLlonale of publlc and prlvaLe lnLernaLlonal law boLh deallng wlLh
lnLeracLlons amongsL Lhese varlous socleLles wheLher organlsed as sLaLes peoples groups or
lndlvlduals LhaL LogeLher form Lhe world communlLy dlfferenL legal LradlLlons musL be glven Lhelr
equal and due place ln Lhe lnLernaLlonal legal order 1hls can be achleved by emphaslslng Lhe conLlnulLy
ln Lhe evoluLlon of law an evoluLlon LhaL has consLanLly been lnfluenced by Lhe exchange of many
dlfferenL culLures



1he crlLlcal polnL Lendencles ln conLemporary law 1he second half of Lhe 20Lh cenLury has faced
dynamlc developmenL ln all areas affecLlng human socleLy and drlven by Lhe Lheory of legal poslLlvlsm
law was noL spared from Lhls developmenL and underwenL and ls undergolng slgnlflcanL changes Law
has reached a crlLlcal polnL whlch ls cause for hope and concern Lhe crlLlcal polnL ls undersLood as
Lwo parallel yeL muLually anLagnosLlc Lrends 1he evoluLlon of Lechnology has affecLed Lhe evoluLlon of
law law has rapldly evolved buL Lhe quesLlon ls wheLher lL has progressed or regressed? Law has
progressed Lx1L8nALL? almosL every acLlon ln dally llfe ls sub[ecL Lo law (le broad scope of
appllcaLlon) lrom an ln1L8nAL polnL of vlew as far as Lhe lunC1lCn Cl LAW Wl1P 8LSLC1 1C
!uS1lCL ls concerned (Lhus lncludlng morallLy predlcLablllLy and conLlnulLy) Lhe lssue ls less clear 1he
huge quanLlLy of norms enacLed glves rlse Lo concern A law ls an aLLempL Lo formulaLe a norm wlLh Lhe
use of absLracL wordlng LhaL governs Lhe broadesL area of llfe posslble ArlsLoLle polnLed ouL LhaL every
law ls lald down ln general Lerms whlle Lhere are maLers abouL whlch lL ls lmposslble Lo speak abouL ln
general Lerms 8uL Lhe defecL lles noL ln Lhe law buL ln Lhe naLure of Lhe sub[ecL maLLer 8ecause of Lhls
flaw apparenLly lnherenL ln law Lhe challenge ln Lhe near fuLure ls Lo examlne Lhe LradlLlonal percepLlon
of Lhe Lheory underlylng law 1hls flaw and varlous opposlLe Lendencles ln Lhe evoluLlon of law call for
new LheoreLlcal approaches Lo Lhe law regulaLlng Lhe presenL world order lrom a pracLlcal perspecLlve
lL calls for a slmpler general Lheory allowlng for a rapld orlenLaLlon buL also a [usL appllcaLlon of Lhe vasL
varleLy of norms



A Law for Lhe World of 1oday 1he presenL challenge ls Lo flnd a legal noLlon LhaL faces Lhe challenges
of Lhe new reallLles LhaL a global pollLlcal world order has creaLed Such a noLlon would noL only have Lo
cover Lhe dlfferenL caLegorles of law buL also lL would have Lo meeL Lhe lmpllcaLlons of an lmmense
culLural dlverslLy of legal sysLems creaLed by a large number of sLaLes ln Lhls process of adapLaLlon Lhe
prellmlnary sLep ls Lo brlng abouL Lhe deslred change by redeflnlng exlsLlng noLlons or by creaLlng new
noLlons used ln legal dlscourse Slnce codlflcaLlon Lhe process whereby legal ldeas become poslLlve
law ls Laklng place exLenslvely changes ln Lhe ldeas do noL auLomaLlcally resulL ln changes of Lhe
wrlLLen poslLlve law (le Lhe more condlclLalLon Lhe more dlfflculL lL ls Lo change noLlons) 1herefore
when new legal ldeas emerge Lhey are sLlll expressed Lhrough noLlons LhaL gave shape Lo Lhelr prevlous
legal norms 1he new ldeas may Lhen sLand ln clear conLradlcLlon Lo each oLher 1hls faLe ls shared by
Lhe noLlon of lnLernaLlonal law



1he noLlon of lnLernaLlonal law" 1hls seems Lo be an ouLdaLed concepL noL flL for respondlng Lo new
reallLles AuLhor Lhen llsLs numerous noLlons relaLed Lo lnLernaLlonal law



A synLheLlc search for a sulLable noLlon When conLemplaLlng Lhe varleLy of noLlons LhaL exlsL for Lhe law
of Loday lL ls hard Lo make a cholce Lach noLlon has appeared ln a dlfferenL Llme and conLexL buL Lhey
all appear Lo overlap 1he essay wlll use Lhe Lerm lnLernaLlonal law because lLs covers broadesL range
of Lhese conLexLs lnsLead of Lrylng Lo change Lhe Lerm lLself Lhe focus wlll be on a change of lLs
undersLandlng and scope of appllcaLlon



1he uynamlsm of ubllc/rlvaLe ulchoLomy ubllc lnLernaLlonal law foundaLlons 1he evoluLlon of
publlc lnLernaLlonal law reveals Lhe sLrong lnfluences LhaL Lheorles exerclse on Lhe shape of law and lLs
lnsLlLuLlons on Lhe oLher hand Lhe Lheorles Lhemselves are shaped by lnfluences sLemmlng from Lhe
facLual developmenLs occurrlng ln Lhls world 1hls becomes obvlous when one conslders Lhe Lwo maln
Lheorles compeLlng ln lnLernaLlonal law naLural law and poslLlve law Lhe flrsL emphaslslng moral
sLandards and Lhe laLLer a more pracLlcal approach Whlle a naLurallsL vlew domlnaLed Lhe 17Lh and
18Lh cenLurles Lhe poslLlvlsL vlew galned lmporLance LhroughouL Lhe 19Lh cenLury Slnce WW ll Lhe
naLurallsL and poslLlvlsL vlews can be sald Lo coexlsL ln parallel 1he aLroclLles commlLLed by Lhe nazl
governmenL LhaL culmlnaLed ln World War uu revlved Lhe popularlLy of naLural law Slnce Lhen Lhe
naLurallsL and poslLlvlsL vlew can be sald Lo coexlsL ln parallel rlnclple sources of lnLernaLlonal law (l)
lnLernaLlonal convenLlons esLabllshlng rules expressly recognlsed by conLesLlng sLaLes (corresponds
more wlLh poslLlvlsL LhoughL) (ll) lnLernaLlonal cusLom (eg LreaLles whlch lack unlversal blndlng force)
(corresponds wlLh naLurallsL LhoughL) 1he unlversally blndlng force of cusLom ls expressed ln Lhe
concepL of lus cogens le perempLory norms whlch ls based upon an accepLance of fundamenLal and
superlor values wlLhln Lhe sysLem and lns some respecLs ls akln Lo Lhe noLlon of publlc order" A furLher
expresslon of Lhe naLurallsL characLer expressed by cusLom ls found ln Lhe concepL of obllgaLlons erga
omnes WlLh full awareness of Lhe ma[or lmporLance of Lhe dlsLlncLlon beLween cusLomary and LreaLy
law



rlvaLe lnLernaLlonal law ConfllcL of laws ln lLs wldesL sense deals wlLh 3 sub[ecLs [urlsdlcLlon cholce of
law and recognlLlon of forelgn [udgmenLs 1he body of rules called prlvaLe lnLernaLlonal law fulfllls a
coordlnaLlng funcLlon beLween legal orders of dlfferenL sLaLes ln search for a greaLer declslonal
harmony lrom a LheoreLlcal perspecLlve Lhe hlsLorlcal developmenL of prlvaLe lnLernaLlonal law was
domlnaLed by 2 ma[or ldeas



rlvaLe and publlc law 1he classlcal dlsLlncLlon ls LhaL publlc law governs Lhe relaLlons beLween Lhe
sLaLe and lLs naLlonals whlle prlvaLe law governs Lhelr relaLlons amongsL Lhemselves



1he lmplemenLaLlon of lnLernaLlonal law

1he way a sLaLe approaches Lhls depends on wheLher Lhe sLaLe pracLlce ls lnfluenced by Lhe monlsL or
duallsL concepL

1he recepLlon and lmplemenLaLlon of Lhe lnLernaLlonal norm ln Lhe naLlonal realm ls necessary
because a sLaLe Lhe LradlLlonal sub[ecL of lnLernaLlonal law can ln some cases only achleve compllance
w/ lnLernaLlonal obllgaLlons by assurlng LhaL Lhe behavlour of lLs naLlonals ls ln conformlLy w/
lnLernaLlonal obllgaLlons enLered by Lhe same sLaLe CusLomary lnLernaLlonal law and LreaLles
ulsLlngulsh beLween Lhese Lwo Lhe Lwo maln sources of lnLernaLlonal law

lnLernaLlonal cusLomary law ls consldered Lo be parL of munlclpal law lf lncorporaLed 1he
lncorporaLlon can be made on Lhe basls of a relevanL consLlLuLlonal provlslon or by [udlclal pracLlce
lncorporaLlon doesn'L auLomaLlcally glve such law hlgher sLandlng wlLhln Lhe naLlonal legal order A laLer
naLlonal law ls capable of nulllfylng Lhe obllgaLlon seL forLh

1reaLles 1he way LreaLles are Lransferred lnLo Lhe naLlonal legal sysLem noL only depends on Lhe
consLlLuLlon buL also Lhe characLer of Lhe LreaLy 1he CCnS1l1u1lCn deLermlnes Lhe process from Lhe
beglnnlng of negoLlaLlons unLll Lhe flnal admlnlsLraLlon of a negoLlaLed LreaLy wlLhln a naLlonal
leglslaLlon lrom a consLlLuLlonal polnL of vlew Lhe lmplemenLaLlon of a LreaLy can Lake place Lhrough a
speclal or general LransformaLlon Speclal lnLernaLlonal norm musL be adopLed by
leglslaLlon/regulaLlon general declared parL of munlclpal law wlLhouL any speclal leglslaLlon 1reaLles
can elLher be selfexecuLlng or nonself execuLlng Lhe former requlres lmplemenLaLlon by way of
sLaLuLe

AdvanLages/dlsadvanLages of dlrecL appllcablllLy of lnLernaLlonal laws ln a munlclpal courL
advanLages lnclude Lhe lncrease for Lhe effecLlveness of lnLernaLlonal law a beLLer fulflllmenL of
relevanL LreaLy obllgaLlons eLc ulsadvanLages are recognlzed when one conslders democraLlc
parLlclpaLlon ln Lhe lnLernaLlonal law maklng process Lhe adapLlon of lnLernaLlonal norms Lo domesLlc
parLlcular clrcumsLances Lhe adequaLe fulflllmenL of Lhe respecLlve lnLernaLlonal obllgaLlons posslble
confllcLs beLween lnLernaLlonal and oLher naLlons norms





2 SCu8CLS Cl LAW



Cvervlew

Larly relaLlons wlLh Aborlglnal eoples

8ecepLlon of Lngllsh Common Law

lrench Clvll Law and 8l[urallsm

ConvenLlon

SLaLuLe

1reaLy



Law and Aborlglnals

lL ls lmporLanL for a legal sysLem Lo recognlze LhaL Canada was populaLed by aborlglnal people prlor Lo
lLs colonlzaLlon by Lhe Luropean emplres

Aborlglnals' culLural pollLlcal economlc and legal sysLems/rlghLs noL proLecLed afLer colonlzaLlon

8uL ln 1982 wlLh Lhe paLrlaLlon of Lhe ConsLlLuLlon aborlglnal rlghLs were consLlLuLlonally enLrenched
ln s 33 of Lhe ConsLlLuLlon AcL 1982

Cases such as MlLchell v Canada and uelgamuukw v 8C lnLerpreLed s 33



Canada's Common and Clvll Law 1radlLlons



a 8ecepLlon of Luropean law

Canada law remalns a largely Luropean lnherlLance 8rlLlsh concepLs of recepLlon" deLermlned how
Canada's common law and sLaLuLe law was recelved

!usL as Lhe aborlglnal legal sysLems Lhe 8rlLlsh had speclal rules of lncorporaLlon LhaL deflned how non
8rlLlsh law would apply ln Lhelr colonles lf a locaLlon was conquered or ceded Lhe local laws would
conLlnue Lo apply modlfled only as far as was necessary Lo lnLegraLe Lhem lnLo Lhe lmperlal legal
sysLem lor Lhose LerrlLorles LhaL were slmply colonlzed Lhe Common law as lL sLood aL Lhe Llme of flrsL
seLLlemenL was lmporLed (Cooper v SLewarL)

So Lhere ls an lmporLanL dlsLlncLlon beLween CCnCuL8 and SL11LL (LhaL laLLer of whlch lgnores Lhe
presence of Aborlglnals lL enLalls Lhe auLomaLlc recepLlon of Lngllsh law)

MosL of Canada consldered seLLled" so enLlre body of Lngllsh law was lmporLed Lo Lhe seLLled
colonles

1he courLs were Lhe arblLers of seLLlemenL daLes



b naLure of Lhe Common and Clvll law

Common law Common law ls an Lngllsh lnvenLlon lL ls [udgemade law developed Lhrough Lhe
common law courLs (as opposed Lo Lhe CourL of Chancery) 1wo fundamenLal ldeas permeaLe common
law Lheory (1) !udges do noL make Lhe law buL merely declare lL (2) all Lhe relevanL pasL declslons are
consldered as evldence of Lhe law and [udges lnfer from Lhese precedenLs whaL ls Lhe Lrue law ln a
glven lnsLance

Clvll law Cuebec lnherlLed clvll law Clvll law ls based on esLabllshed laws normally wrlLLen as broad
legal prlnclples 1he dlfference beLween clvll and common law lles more ln Lhelr dlfferenL
meLhodologlcal approaches as opposed Lo codlflcaLlon per se ln clvll law counLrles leglslaLlon ls seen as
Lhe prlmary source of law !udgemenLs normally rely on Lhe provlslons of codes and sLaLuLes !udlclal
reasonlng ls based exLenslvely on Lhe general prlnclples of Lhe rule or code Cn Lhe oLher hand common
law meLhodology even where sLaLuLory sources of law are presenL employs analoglcal reasonlng from
sLaLuLory provlslons Lo flll ln gaps

1he bl[urallsm" remalns largely lnLacL ln Canada Loday



c 1he CperaLlon of Common Law and recedenL

1he prlnclple of sLare declsls ls Lhe formal Lerm Lo descrlbe how Lhe common law relles on precedenL

recedenL ln law helps ln caLegorlzaLlon precedenL economlzes on lnformaLlon and mlnlmlzes
ldlosyncraLlc concluslons and serves Lherefore a number of purposes

AdvanLages/beneflLs and dlsadvanLages/problems wlLh/of precedenL a AdvanLages/beneflLs (l) Alds
ln Lhe sLablllLy and coherence of Lhe law maklng lL more predlcLable (ll) rovldes falrness ln declslon
maklng (lll) romoLes efflclency and ellmlnaLes sources of error (such as [udlclal blas) (lv) lulfllls a
symbollc role by recognlzlng Lhe relaLlonshlp beLween courLs and Lhe leglslaLure (v) rovldes some
cerLalnLy (llberLy Lo declde each case as you Lhlnk rlghL wlLhouL any regard Lo prlnclples lald down ln
prevlous cases would resulL ln uncerLalnLy of law) (vl) osslblllLy of growLh (new rules can be
esLabllshed and old rules can be adapLed Lo meeL new clrcumsLances and Lhe changlng needs ln socleLy)
(eg can Lalk abouL how femlnlsLs would en[oy Lhls aspecL of Lhe docLrlne wlLhouL whlch Lhe laws Loday
relaLlng Lo female parLlclpaLlon ln socleLy mlghL be prlmlLlve) b ulsadvanLages/problems (l) 8lgldlLy
(once a rule ls lald down lL ls blndlng even lf Lhe declslon ls LhoughL Lo be wrong)



+ erpeLuaLlon of errors



(ll) 8ulk/complexlLy (so much law dlfflculL Lo learn lL all lay people can'L access lL) (lll) Slowness ln
growLh (Lhe sysLem depends on llLlgaLlon for rules Lo emerge) (lv) Lasy Lo dlsLlngulsh (Clve case
example) (v) Also some lnLellecLual uncerLalnLy (as Lhe law ls ln consLanL evoluLlon)



d Common Law and LqulLy

Common law has a varleLy of lnLernal meanlngs accordlng Lo conLexL for lnsLance common law musL
someLlmes be dlsLlngulshed from equlLy

LqulLy's orlglnal funcLlon was Lo provlde a correcLlve Lo Lhe percelved harshness of Lhe common law

Law as a body of rules ls by lLs naLure concerned wlLh generallLles

groups or classes of persons and evenLs raLher Lhan lndlvlduals and dlscreLe happenlngs 8ecause of
Lhls law someLlmes falls Lo achleve adequaLe [usLlce ln a parLlcular case

8ules of equlLy are now applled concurrenLly ln all superlor courLs wlLh equlLy prevalllng ln cases of
confllcL



e lnLernaLlonal Law

ulsLlngulsh beLween domesLlc and lnLernaLlonal law

lnLernaLlonal law

ulsLlngulsh beLween LreaLles (conLracLs beLween sLaLes who Lake parL ln LreaLy) and cusLomary
lnLernaLlonal law (enLrenched norms blndlng on all sLaLes excepL Lhose who have repudlaLed Lhem by
pracLlce)



lnLernaLlonal law as a parL of Canadlan law



Pow does domesLlc law lnLeracL wlLh lnLernaLlonal law?

1he answer depends on Lhe source of lnLernaLlonal law LreaLy or cusLomary law?



(a) 1reaLles uuallsm Canada has a duallsL LradlLlon

an lnLernaLlonal LreaLy has no dlrecL effecL ln domesLlc law unLll domesLlc leglslaLlon passed Lo
Lransform or lmplemenL Lhe law lnLo Canadlan law by an acL of arllamenL (lf a federal maLLer) or
provlnclal LeglslaLures (lf a provlnclal maLLer)

1here are advanLages dlsadvanLages and uncerLalnLles wlLh Lhe duallsL mode of recepLlon (eg
lmplemenLaLlon lssue

no clear rules on when a LreaLy has been lmplemenLed lnLo Canadlan law ln Lhls conLexL Lhe 8aker
approach seems Lo be unsaLlsfacLory whlch sLaLes LhaL for a LreaLy Lo be consldered lmplemenLed lL
musL be done so expllclLly ln Lhe relevanL sLaLuLe

see Lhe A PeslLanL Lmbrace" arLlcle below for a crlLlque of 8aker and Lhls approach ln general
furLher Lhe Suresh approach appears Lo noL be saLlsfacLory elLher whlch suggesLs LhaL you can use
unlmplemenLed LreaLles Lo ald lnLerpreLaLlon of leglslaLlon)



(b) CusLomary lnLernaLlonal law

Cnce a rule becomes recognlzed as cusLomary law lL ls Au1CMA1lCALL? parL of domesLlc law

Can be dlsplaced by sLaLuLe

1here are also some concerns relaLed Lo lncorporaLlng cusLomary lnLernaLlonal law lnLo domesLlc law
8uL Lhe SCC has been unclear on Lhe sLaLuLes of cusLomary lnLernaLlonal law ln Canadlan domesLlc law

1he followlng are Lwo cases on Lhe appllcaLlon of lnLernaLlonal law ln Canadlan domesLlc law



8aker v Canada L'Peureuxuube lmporLance of conslderlng besL lnLeresLs of chlldren lndlcaLed by
Canada's raLlflcaLlon of Lhe ConvenLlon on Lhe 8lghLs of Lhe Chlld an lnLernaLlonal lnsLrumenL
lnLernaLlonal LreaLles and convenLlons are noL parL of Canadlan law unless Lhey have been lmplemenLed
by sLaLuLe 1he ConvenLlon has noL been lmplemenLed by arllamenL and Lherefore lLs provlslons have
no dlrecL affecL on Canadlan law neverLheless Lhe values reflecLed ln lnLernaLlonal human rlghLs law
may help lnform Lhe conLexLual approach Lo sLaLuLory lnLerpreLaLlon and [udlclal revlew



lacobuccl lL ls a maLLer of wellseLLled law LhaL an lnLernaLlonal convenLlon raLlfled by Lhe execuLlve
branch of governmenL ls of no force or effecL wlLhln Lhe Canadlan legal sysLem unLll such Llme as lLs
provlslons have been lncorporaLed lnLo domesLlc law by way of lmplemenLlng leglslaLlon l do noL agree
wlLh Lhe approach adopLed by my colleague whereln reference ls made Lo Lhe underlylng values of an
unlmplemenLed lnLernaLlonal LreaLy ln Lhe course of Lhe conLexLual approach Lo sLaLuLory lnLerpreLaLlon
and admlnlsLraLlve law because such an approach ls noL ln accordance wlLh Lhe CourL's [urlsprudence
concernlng Lhe sLaLus of lnLernaLlonal law wlLhln Lhe domesLlc legal sysLem



ue Cuzman v Canada

lAC1S Ms C's appllcaLlon Lo have her sons sponsored for admlsslon Lo Canada was refused under Lhe
lmmlgraLlon and 8efugee roLecLlon 8egulaLlons Ms C argued lnLer alla LhaL Lhe relevanL provlslon ls
lnvalld Cne ground was LhaL lL ls lnconslsLenL wlLh lnLernaLlonal human rlghLs lnsLrumenLs Lo whlch
Canada ls a slgnaLory and whlch proLecL Lhe rlghL of famllles Lo llve LogeLher and Lhe besL lnLeresLs of
chlldren C argues LhaL prlorlLy should be glven Lo lnLernaLlonal lnsLrumenLs whlch prevall over any
lnconslsLenL provlslon ln elLher Lhe l8A or Lhe regulaLlons



lSSuL ls paragraph 117(9)(d) lnvalld because lL renders Lhe l8A noncompllanL wlLh lnLernaLlonal
human rlghLs lnsLrumenLs Lo whlch Canada ls slgnaLory



8LASCnlnC

1o conclude LhaL Lhe Lerms of Lhe l8A whlch have been debaLed and approved by arllamenL are
overrldden by a confllcLlng lnLernaLlonal legal lnsLrumenL does noL respecL Lhe leglslaLlve process ln Lhls
counLry Cnly express lndlcaLlon of such a prlnclple by arllamenL would allow such an ouLcome

8uL Lhe appllcaLlons !udge Look an overly narrow vlew on Lhe value of lnLernaLlonal law

lnLernaLlonal law can be used Lo lnLerpreL Lhe CharLer and lL can lnfluence Lhe common law

ln 8aker CourL endorsed Lhe use of lnLernaLlonal law Lo lnLerpreL a sLaLuLory provlslon as requlrlng
lmmlgraLlon offlcers Lo glve greaL welghL Lo Lhe besL lnLeresLs of any affecLed chlldren when exerclslng
dlscreLlon LvLn ll nC1 lMLLMLn1Lu

lurLher 8runnees and 1roope ln a PeslsLanL Lmbrace argue LhaL courLs have noL always made lL clear
how lnfluenLlal lnLernaLlonal law should be ln Lhe lnLerpreLaLlon of domesLlc leglslaLlon SomeLlmes lL ls
LreaLed as merely persuaslve whlle aL oLher Llmes lL ls presumed Lo be deLermlnaLlve unless Lhe
sLaLuLory LexL ls lrremedlably lnconslsLenL wlLh lnLernaLlonal law ln an aLLempL Lo brlng greaLer clarlLy
Lo Lhe analysls ln Lhe evolvlng domesLlc [urlsprudence Lhe auLhors suggesL LhaL arllamenL should be
presumed noL Lo leglslaLe ln derogaLlon of lnLernaLlonal legal norms LhaL are blndlng ln Canada ln
conLrasL non blndlng lnLernaLlonal norms should noL be glven Lhe same lnLerpreLlve welghL buL should
be regarded as no more Lhan persuaslve and conLexLual



PLLu l conclude LhaL paragraph 3(3)(f) does noL lncorporaLe lnLo Canadlan law lnLernaLlonal human
rlghLs lnsLrumenLs Lo whlch Canada ls a slgnaLory buL merely dlrecLs LhaL Lhe l8A musL be consLrued
and applled ln a manner LhaL complles wlLh Lhem

1he followlng ls an arLlcle on lssues concernlng Lhe appllcaLlon of lnLernaLlonal law ln Canadlan courLs



8runnee !uLLa SLephen 1oope A PeslLanL Lmbrace 8aker and Lhe AppllcaLlon of lnLernaLlonal Law ln
Canadlan CourLs" 8ackground

1oday CourLs appear Lo recognlze Lhe relevance of lnLernaLlonal norms wheLher or noL Lhey have been
lmplemenLed Lhrough Canadlan leglslaLlon and wheLher or noL Lhey are blndlng on Canada

ln 8aker Lhe CourL held LhaL Lhe values reflecLed ln lnLernaLlonal human rlghLs law may help lnform
Lhe conLexLual approach Lo sLaLuLory lnLerpreLaLlon and [udlclal revlew

Canadlan courLs are grappllng more wlLh Lhe pracLlcal appllcaLlon" of lnLernaLlonal law Canadlan
courLs however are sLlll lncllned Lo avold decldlng cases on Lhe basls of lnLernaLlonal law and Lhe
avoldance sLraLegy ls subLle even when Lhey lnvoke lnLernaLlonal law Canadlan courLs generally do
noL glve lnLernaLlonal norms concreLe legal effecL ln lndlvldual case

AfLer Lhe 8aker declslon Lhere appears Lo be a Lrend Lowards LreaLlng all lnLernaLlonal law wheLher
cusLom or LreaLy blndlng on Canada or noL lmplemenLed or unlmplemenLed ln Lhe same manner as
relevanL and persuaslve buL noL deLermlnaLlve (Lhls comes lmpllclLly from Lhe declslon noL expllclLly)

1he polnL ls Lhe Supreme CourL and oLher courLs have confused raLher Lhen clarlfled Lhe domesLlc
lmpacL of lnLernaLlonal law

!ob for academlcs and [udlclary Lo aLLack lnLernaLlonal law quesLlons ln a more prlnclpled manner
Same wlLh courLs

1he SCC ln 8aker and ln Suresh sald LhaL Lhe relevanL lnLernaLlonal lnsLrumenL was noL lmplemenLed ln
Canada (buL we Lhlnk lL's arguable LhaL Lhere ls lmplled lmplemenLaLlon because of Lhe CharLer and lLs
proLecLlons)

We argue LhaL lLs ls noL enough Lo LreaL ALL normaLlve Lhreads as poLenLlally persuaslve buL noL
mandaLory over Llme Lhls approach rlsks weakenlng Lhe fabrlc of Lhe law



CCnCL8n lf lnLernaLlonal law ls merely persuaslve lL becomes purely opLlonal and lL can be lgnored aL
Lhe dlscreLlon of Lhe [udge

We argue LhaL ln Lhe case of norms LhaL are blndlng on Canada under lnLernaLlonal law Canadlan
courLs have an obllgaLlon Lo lnLerpreL domesLlc law ln conformlLy wlLh Lhe relevanL lnLernaLlonal norms
as far as posslble 8y conLrasL norms LhaL aren'L blndlng (eg sofL law) can help lnform Lhe
lnLerpreLaLlon of domesLlc law and may be persuaslve



lmplemenLed 1reaLles



ln Canada Lhe execuLlve conLrols boLh Lhe slgnaLure and raLlflcaLlon of lnLernaLlonal LreaLles lf Lhe
LreaLy ls ln force and Canada has raLlfled lL Lhe LreaLy ls blndlng on Canada as a maLLer of lnLernaLlonal
law buL Lhls does noL answer Lhe quesLlon of wheLher Lhe LreaLy ls effecLlve wlLhln Lhe Canadlan
domesLlc legal sysLem

lnLernaLlonal LreaLles are noL dlrecLly appllcable ln Canada buL requlre LransformaLlon

Canadlan courLs sLruggle noL only Lo deLermlne when lnLernaLlonal norms requlre lmplemenLaLlon
Lhrough leglslaLlon buL also Lo deLermlne wheLher such lmplemenLaLlon has acLually occurred 1hey
wresLle as well wlLh Lhe lmpllcaLlons of Lhe common law prlnclple LhaL arllamenL ls noL presumed Lo
leglslaLe ln breach of a LreaLy or ln a manner lnconslsLenL wlLh Lhe comlLy of naLlons and Lhe esLabllshed
rules of lnLernaLlonal law76 ln Lhe case law lL remalns unclear when Lhls prlnclple comes lnLo play and
how lL relaLes Lo Lhe lmplemenLaLlon requlremenL

So whlle Lhe power Lo enLer lnLo an agreemenL resLs wlLh Lhe federal execuLlve LransformaLlon
generally requlres leglslaLlon LhaL enacLs LreaLy obllgaLlons lnLo domesLlc law

1ransformaLlon musL occur w/ln Lhe [urlsdlcLlonal framework seL ouL by Lhe ConsLlLuLlon AcL 1867

lL ls unclear whaL consLlLuLes lmplemenLaLlon and Lhere are poLenLlally many ways Lhls can be done ln
a sLaLuLe LeasL common pracLlce ls lnferred lmplemenLaLlon"

When a LreaLy ls expllclLly Lransformed lnLo Canadlan law lLs provlslons should be deLermlnaLlve ln Lhe
lnLerpreLaLlon of domesLlc leglslaLlon

When Lhe purpose of a sLaLuLe ls Lo lmplemenL an lnLernaLlonal LreaLy Lhe CourL musL adopL an
lnLerpreLaLlon conslsLenL wlLh Canada's obllgaLlons under Lhe LreaLy

A courL musL rely on Lhe LreaLy Lo lnLerpreL Lhe sLaLuLe and on Lhe lnLernaLlonal rules of LreaLy
lnLerpreLaLlon Lo lnLerpreL Lhe LreaLy and resolve any LexLual amblgulLles

Canadlan courLs have Lended Lowards a narrow consLrucLlon of Lhe lmplemenLaLlon requlremenL
effecLlvely equaLlng lmplemenLaLlon wlLh sLaLuLory lmplemenLaLlon

8uL surely Lhere can be lmpllclL lmplemenLaLlon eg by way of Lhe CharLer

ln Ahanl lL was sLaLed LhaL absenL lmplemenLlng leglslaLlon lnLernaLlonal law has no effecL
1radlLlonally however Canadlan law dld noL caLegorlcally requlre sLaLuLory lmplemenLaLlon

unlmplemenLed LreaLles 1here are cases where LreaLles are genulnely unlmplemenLed

WhaL ls Lhe legal effecL of such LreaLles? We submlL LhaL a LreaLy LhaL ls blndlng on Canada whlle noL
dlrecLly appllcable ln Canada ls noneLheless sub[ecL Lo Lhe presumpLlon of leglslaLlve lnLenL Lo AcL
conslsLenLly wlLh Canada's lnLernaLlonal obllgaLlons

As we undersLand Lhe presumpLlon lL applles Lo all of Canada's lnLernaLlonal obllgaLlons wheLher
LreaLy based or rooLed ln cusLomary lnLernaLlonal law

1hls undersLandlng leads Lo Lhe lnference LhaL courLs should make every efforL Lo lnLerpreL Canadlan
law so as Lo conform Lo Canada's lnLernaLlonal obllgaLlons

unforLunaLely Canadlan case law has noL Laken a conslsLenL approach Lo Lhe presumpLlon of
conformlLy w/ lnLernaLlonal law

llrsL Lhere ls an uncerLalnLy of Lhe effecL of LhaL presumpLlon ln Lhe conLexL of CharLer lnLerpreLaLlon
1he SCC has Lended Lo draw upon lnLernaLlonal norms merely Lo lnform lLs lnLerpreLaLlon of Lhe CharLer
ln Lhe CharLer conLexL a weaker verslon of Lhe presumpLlon of conformlLy has emerged

Secondly Lhe case law slnce 8aker ls unclear on wheLher Lhe presumpLlon applles equally Lo Canada's
lnLernaLlonal obllgaLlons and nonblndlng lnLernaLlonal norms

1he amblguous sLaLe of Lhe caselaw ln Lhls regard ls reflecLed ln Lhe CourL's declslon ln 8aker Cne of
Lhe prlnclple causallLles of Lhls lack of clarlLy ls cusLomary lnLernaLlonal law 1he cenLral rullng ln 8aker
was LhaL even Lhough Canada had never expllclLly Lransformed lLs obllgaLlons under Lhe ConvenLlon of
Lhe 8lghLs of Lhe Chlld lnLo domesLlc law Lhe lmmlgraLlon offlclal was bound Lo conslder Lhe values"
expressed ln LhaL ConvenLlon when exerclslng dlscreLlon 1herefore Lhe ConvenLlon's emphasls upon
Lhe besL lnLeresLs of Lhe chlld" should have welghed heavlly ln conslderlng Ms 8aker's appllcaLlon



Pow dld ma[orlLy arrlve aL Lhe concluslon LhaL Lhe values reflecLed ln lnLernaLlonal human rlghLs law
may help lnform Lhe conLexLual approach Lo sLaLuLory lnLerpreLaLlon and [udlclal revlew? More
speclflcally Lhe cenLral quesLlon ls how Lhe ma[orlLy concelved of Lhls prlnclple ln relaLlon Lo Lhe
LradlLlonal presumpLlon of sLaLuLory conformlLy wlLh lnLernaLlonal obllgaLlons

lL would seem LhaL Lhe prlmary quesLlon for Lhe ma[orlLy wlLh respecL Lo Lhe relevanL lnLernaLlonal
lnsLrumenL was how Lo glve effecL Lo Lhe unlmplemenLed LreaLy As sald above Lhe ma[orlLy Look Lhe
narrow vlew on Lhe quesLlon of lmplemenLaLlon and observed LhaL absenL lmplemenLaLlon by
arllamenL lL's provlslons have no ul8LC1 appllcaLlon ln Canadlan law ?eL Lhe values" reflecLed ln Lhe
ConvenLlon could shape sLaLuLory lnLerpreLaLlon



ln our vlew Lhe ma[orlLy erred for 2 reasons

(1) Whlle Lhe provlslons ln LhaL lnsLrumenL were noL dlrecLly appllcable ln Canadlan law Lhey were
blndlng Cn Canada and Lherefore relevanL Lo sLaLuLory lnLerpreLaLlon Lhrough Lhe presumpLlon of
conformlLy (from Lhe sLandpolnL of Lhls presumpLlon Lhe CourL wouldn'L have had Lo dlsLlngulsh
beLween Lhe provlslons and values" and could have used boLh) 1he CourL slmply falled Lo adopL Lhe
presumpLlon whlch Lhey should have based on Lhe very quoLe whlch Lhey relled Lo clLe auLhorlLy for Lhe
presumpLlon lL would have been clearer for Lhem Lo [usL have used Lhe presumpLlon ln arrlvlng aL Lhe
concluslon

(2) 8y avoldlng Lhe presumpLlon Lhe lnLerpreLaLlon of Lhe lnLernaLlonal lnsLrumenLal Laken was overly
narrow

8aker resulLs ln 2 quesLlons

(1) Pow should courLs approach lnLernaLlonal LreaLy norms LhaL are blndlng on Canada buL absenL
lmplemenLaLlon noL dlrecLly appllcable ln Canada?

(2) Pow should Lhey approach norms LhaL do noL blnd Canada buL reflecL lmporLanL lnLernaLlonal
values?

Some have suggesLed Lo lgnore Lhe rlgld dlsLlncLlon beLween blndlng and non blndlng uolng so rlsks
some norms belng lgnored compleLely slmply because Lhey are noL legally blndlng Slmllarly legal
norms produce a false sense of securlLy when lL ls assumed LhaL Lhey requlre noLhlng oLher Lhan
mechanlcal" appllcaLlon by a [udge Accordlng Lo knop an approach focused on persuaslveness of
norms can lmprove Lhe domesLlc appllcaLlon of boLh Lypes of norms knop Lherefore llkes 8aker's
approach

8uL we are worrled LhaL 8aker has noL slgnaled a poslLlve shlfL Worry ls LhaL 8aker slgnals a paLh
Lowards LreaLlng all lnLernaLlonal law as persuaslve auLhorlLy whlch Lhe CourL MA? use Lo lnform lLs
lnLerpreLaLlon of domesLlc law 8y LreaLlng boLh blndlng and nonblndlng lnLernaLlonal norms ln Lhls
manner courLs move away from Lhelr duLy Lo sLrlve for an lnLerpreLaLlon LhaL ls conslsLenL wlLh
Canada's lnLernaLlonal obllgaLlons

8lndlng lnLernaLlonal norms are noL only persuaslve Lhey are obllgaLory lf we fall Lo uphold our
obllgaLlons we undermlne respecL for law lnLernaLlonally

noLe blndlng raLlfled lmplemenLed lmplemenLed by sLaLuLe



CusLomary lnLernaLlonal law



1he exlsLence of a blndlng rule of cusLom ls proven wlLh reference Lo Lwo dlsLlncL buL lnLerrelaLed
elemenLs sLaLe pracLlce and oplnlo [urls

1he proper appllcaLlon of cusLomary lnLernaLlonal law has emerged ln a serles of cases afLer 8aker as a
ma[or quesLlon for Lhe Supreme CourL 1o whaL exLenL can lnLernaLlonal cusLomary law lnform domesLlc
legal processes? 1he besL vlew appears Lo be LhaL cusLomary law can operaLe dlrecLly wlLhln Lhe
Canadlan legal sysLem

We hope LhaL Lhe SCC lnLended Lo suggesL LhaL Lhe precauLlonary prlnclple can lnform sLaLuLory
lnLerpreLaLlon even lf lL should noL yeL have become cusLomary lnLernaLlonal law lf Lhls readlng ls
correcL Lhe CourL would have conflrmed a prlnclple LhaL lL alluded Lo ln 8aker ln approprlaLe cases
lnLernaLlonal norms LhaL are noL legally blndlng on Canada may lnform sLaLuLory lnLerpreLaLlon and
[udlclal revlew

AnoLher case afLer SprayLech LhaL Lhe SCC commenLed on cusLomary lnLernaLlonal law was ln Suresh
!us cogens norms are a parLlcularly compelllng form of cusLomary lnLernaLlonal law



Summary



CusLomary lnLernaLlonal law (a perempLory norm of cusLomary lnLernaLlonal law whlch emerges by
general consensus of Lhe lnLernaLlonal communlLy) should be dlrecLly appllcable (lL ls a parL of Canadlan
law) CourLs should sLrlve Lo lnLerpreL sLaLuLes and common law Lo be conslsLenL wlLh obllgaLlons under
cusLomary law Powever Lhe approach of Canadlan courLs Lo cusLomary lnLernaLlonal law ls unclear
1here ls no unequlvocal sLaLemenL on wheLher cusLom ls parL of Canadlan law or noL lf anyLhlng Lhere
are some lndlcaLlons LhaL our courLs may be reLreaLlng from cusLom 1he SCC declslons ln SprayLech and
Suresh leave room Lo be lnLerpreLed as suggesLlng LhaL cusLomary law lncludlng even [usL cogens ls noL
dlrecLly blndlng ln Canada 1he Lwo declslons permlL Lhe lnference LhaL cusLom merely helps lnform a
conLexLual approach Lo sLaLuLory lnLerpreLaLlon furnlshlng a poLenLlally relevanL and persuaslve source
for Lhls power buL noLhlng more

lnLernaLlonal LreaLy law LreaLy LhaL has been expllclLly lmplemenLed by sLaLuLe ls parL of our domesLlc
law and should be deLermlnaLlve ln Lhe lnLerpreLaLlon of Canadlan law When CharLer lssues arlse
Canadlan leglslaLures reLaln conLrol over domesLlc law 1he presumpLlon of conformlLy ls Lo be applled
only where posslble and lL can be rebuLLed by an expllclL leglslaLlve AcL

lnLernaLlonal law LhaL ls nC1 blndlng flnally Lhere ls an array of lnLernaLlonal normaLlve sLaLemenLs
LhaL may noL be legally blndlng on Canada buL Canada may flnd relevanL Lo Lhe lnLerpreLaLlon of a
domesLlc sLaLuLe Lg mlghL encounLer nonblndlng parLs of a LreaLy (preamble) lnLernaLlonal LreaLles
Lo whlch Canada ls noL a parLy eLc (SCl1 LAW)

1hese norms should be LreaLed as poLenLlally relevanL and persuaslve for Lhe lnLerpreLaLlon of
domesLlc law

Concluslon Canadlan courLs are becomlng lnLernaLlonal courLs as Lhe boundarles beLween naLlons
becomes more blurred



1he 8l[urallsm" lssue



ueparLmenL of !usLlce 8l[urallsm and ParmonlzaLlon Cenesls" 8l[urallsm" slgnlfles Lhe coexlsLence
of Lhe Lngllsh common law and lrench clvll law LradlLlons wlLhln a counLry organlzed along federal
llnes



Common Law 1radlLlon



1he common law LradlLlon can be dlsLlngulshed from Lhe clvll LradlLlonal essenLlally by lLs meLhod LhaL
ls lLs rules of lnLerpreLaLlon Lhe hlerarchy of lLs sources and lLs lnducLlve reasonlng 1he prlnclple
characLerlsLlc of Lhe common law ls Lhls lnducLlve process whlch conslsLs of generallzlng from common
polnLs beLween dlsLlncL cases and Lhen esLabllshlng legal caLegorles wlLh vague foundaLlons and flexlble
llmlLs 1o pracLlLloners Lhe common law means LhaL Lhey have access Lo a fragmenLed law LhaL Lhey
wlll dlscover lncremenLally as needed 1hls leads Lo Lhe legal flcLlon LhaL a [udge does noL make Lhe law
buL dlscovers lL as a legal vacuum ls lmposslble

Clvll Law 1radlLlon 1he mosL lmporLanL feaLure of Lhe clvll law LradlLlon dlfferenLlaLlng lL from Lhe
common law LradlLlon ls lLs emphasls on Lhe prlmacy of wrlLLen laws Clvll law ls noL [udge
made/recognlzed law lL's codlfled law AnoLher deflnlng characLerlsLlc of Lhe clvlllan LradlLlon ls lLs
concepLuallsm as Lhe clvll law LradlLlon ls characLerlzed by lLs emphasls on absLracL concepLs WhaL
follows from Lhls ls Lhe use of a deducLlve approach Lo legal reasonlng ls used proceedlng from Lhe
general Lo Lhe speclflc (as opposed Lo speclflc Lo general llke ln C/L) 1he second source of law ln clvlllan
LradlLlon ls legal scholarshlp la docLrlne" and Lhe Lhlrd source ls prlor [udlclal declslons



Language Cne lnLegral lssue relaLlng Lo Canadas bl[urallsm ls LhaL of language lL ls very lmporLanL
for me Lo sLress LhaL l conslder language Lo play a cruclal role ln Lhe evoluLlon of law 1he sources of
common law were esLabllshed ln Lhe Lngllsh language 1ranslaLlon ofLen resulLs ln some very dlfflculL
problems for Lhe pracLlce of Lhe common law ln lrench 1he same holds Lrue for Lhe pracLlce of clvll law
ln Lngllsh 1he sulLablllLy of [udges educaLed ln Lhe common law LradlLlon hearlng cases lnvolvlng clvll
law lssues has been Lhe sub[ecL of some debaLe ln Cuebec and has even led Lo some oplnlon favourlng a
dlsLlncL Supreme CourL for Cuebec or a separaLe clvll law dlvlslon wlLhln Lhe exlsLlng Supreme CourL
Cne quesLlon LhaL ofLen arlses ls wheLher Lhe common law sysLem ls lnLlmaLely llnked Lo Lhe Anglo
Saxon menLallLy and language? ls Lhe sysLem of values of lrancophones lnconslsLenL wlLh Lhe common
law LradlLlon? ln Lhls regard l cannoL emphaslze enough LhaL my experlence has LaughL me LhaL lrench
ls noL Lhe excluslve llngulsLlc vehlcle for Lhe expresslon of Lhe clvll law LradlLlon nor ls Lngllsh Lhe
excluslve vehlcle for Lhe expresslon of Lhe common law l hlghly doubL LhaL Lhere ls any mysLlcal
connecLlon beLween Lhe lrench language and Lhe clvll law LradlLlon and Lhe Lngllsh language and Lhe
common law LradlLlon



8lllngual leglslaLlon



lL ls perhaps LrlLe Lo sLaLe LhaL federal leglslaLlon ln Canada ls lnLended Lo apply conslsLenLly across Lhe
provlnces and LerrlLorlesLhaL Lhe same federal law musL apply ln boLh Cuebec and ln CnLarlo Whlle
Lhls may be Lhe ulLlmaLe goal of federal leglslaLlon ln pracLlce Lhls goal ls noL easlly aLLalned slnce
federal leglslaLlon musL be drafLed ln Lhe Lngllsh and lrench languages and ln a manner whlch ls
compaLlble wlLh Lwo legal sysLems lederal leglslaLlon musL noL only be blllngual buL also bl[ural
lndeed federal leglslaLlon musL slmulLaneously address four dlfferenL groups of persons

1 anglophone common law lawyers 2 francophone common law lawyers 3 anglophone Cuebec
clvlllan lawyers and 4 francophone Cuebec clvlllan lawyers

lL ls cruclal LhaL Lhese four legal audlences ln Canada be able Lo boLh read federal sLaLuLes and
regulaLlons ln Lhe offlclal language of Lhelr cholce and also be able Lo flnd ln Lhem Lermlnology and
wordlng LhaL are respecLful of Lhe concepLs noLlons and lnsLlLuLlons proper Lo Lhe legal LradlLlon of Lhelr
parLlcular provlnce or LerrlLory

Cne dlsLlncLlve and ofLen dlfflculL feaLure of Canadlan bl[urallsm ls Lhe Lask of renderlng Lhe common
law ln lrench and Lhe clvll law ln Lngllsh More speclflcally how leglslaLlve sLaLuLes and [udlclal
declslons of elLher legal LradlLlon can be Lransposed lnLo Lhe language of Lhe oLher WlLh respecL Lo
Lhe process of drafLlng federal leglslaLlon lL ls now readlly recognlzed LhaL Lhls process should noL rely
upon Lhe Lechnlque of slmply Lransposlng Lhe concepLs of one legal LradlLlon lnLo Lhe correspondlng
funcLlonal equlvalenLs of Lhe oLher legal LradlLlon ln many areas a new vocabulary musL be forged

lnLerpreLlng 8lllngual LeglslaLlon 1he requlremenL ln Canada LhaL leglslaLlon be enacLed ln boLh Lngllsh
and lrench has lmporLanL lmpllcaLlons lL means LhaL boLh language verslons of a blllngual sLaLuLe are
orlglnal offlclal and auLhorlLaLlve expresslons of Lhe law nelLher verslon has Lhe sLaLus of a copy or
LranslaLlonand nelLher has paramounLcy over Lhe oLher 1hls ls known as Lhe equal auLhenLlclLy rule
1he rule of equal auLhenLlclLy also requlres Lhe courLs ln lnLerpreLlng blllngual leglslaLlon Lo exLracL
Lhe hlghesL common meanlng from Lhe Lwo verslons LhaL ls conslsLenL wlLh Lhe conLexL of Lhe
provlslon Where Lhere ls a blaLanL confllcL beLween Lhe Lngllsh and lrench verslons courLs musL
examlne Lhe leglslaLlve hlsLory of Lhe Lwo llngulsLlc verslons of Lhe provlslon looklng also Lo Lhe purpose
and ob[ecL of Lhe sLaLuLe Cne musL Lherefore go furLher Lhan mere verbal comparlsons looklng Lo Lhe
hlghesL common meanlng of Lhe Lwo verslons CourLs are Lherefore requlred Lo lnLerpreL blllngual
leglslaLlon ln a manner LhaL accords wlLh Lhe Lrue splrlL lnLenL and meanlng of an enacLmenL and LhaL
besL ensures Lhe aLLalnmenL of lLs ob[ecLlves



ParmonlzaLlon



1he lnLeracLlon of law emanaLlng from Lhe federal and provlnclal levels and Lhe poLenLlal confllcLs
beLween Lhem and posslble harmonlzaLlon ls a complex lssue Cver Lhe years pursuanL Lo Lhe dlvlslon of
powers under Lhe ConsLlLuLlon AcL 1867 arllamenL has enacLed a conslderable number of laws almed
aL regulaLlng prlvaLe law lssues CerLaln publlc law sLaLuLes when applled ln Cuebec requlre LhaL
recourse be had Lo Lhe Clvll Code of Cuebec Lo ldenLlfy Lhe preclse naLure of Lhe [urldlcal acL ln quesLlon
ConsequenLly Lhere are several areas of law found ln federal sLaLuLory enacLmenLs whlch requlre
harmonlzaLlon wlLh Cuebec prlvaLe law expressed prlmarlly ln Lhe Cuebec Clvll Code As such clvll law
ls called upon Lo flll Lhe gaps lefL by Lhe federal law Whlle clvll law and common law complemenL Lhe
prlvaLe law provlslons of federal leglslaLlon aL Lhe same Llme federal leglslaLlon should noL be applled
unlformly LhroughouL Lhe counLry ln every respecL Cur ob[ecLlve ls legal duallLy noL necessarlly Lo
achleve one rule Lo be applled unlformly across Canada Lhls requlres respecL for Lhe characLer and
unlqueness of Lhe concepLs and prlnclples of each legal sysLem



Convergence and rogress



1here ls evldence of a cerLaln convergence beLween Lhe clvll law and common law LradlLlons ln Canada
Whlle Lhe common law and clvll law famllles share common orlglns Lhese legal sysLems have been
movlng farLher and farLher from Lhose orlglns 1hls move can be seen as Lhe resulL of frequenL conLacL
wlLh oLher legal sysLems Lhe growLh ln Lhe number of sources of lnLernaLlonal law Lhe moblllLy of
persons Lhe lnfluence of Lhe medla Lhe producLlon of lndlgenous reference works and Lhe growlng use
of leglslaLlon even ln common law [urlsdlcLlons Lo enable Lhe law Lo adapL qulckly Lo socleLal change
Cne ofLenclLed example of Lhe convergence of Lhe Lwo legal LradlLlons ln Canada focuses on Lhe
accepLance ln Cuebec of speclflc lnsLlLuLlons of Lhe common law LradlLlonnamely Lhe LrusL AnoLher
lnsLance of Lhls rapprochemenL of Lhe Lwo LradlLlons can be dlscerned from Lhe currenL slLuaLlon
where common law courLs are requlred Lo apply and lnLerpreL subsLanLlve clvll law eg recenL LorL
case where CourL made exLenslve reference and resorLed Lo clvlllan auLhorlLy Chlef !usLlce McLachlln
sLaLed LhaL looklng Lo how oLher courLs ln dlfferenL [urlsdlcLlons deal wlLh Lhls lssue provldes
perspecLlve boLh on Lhe naLure of Lhe problem and posslble soluLlons



Concluslons



Cur legal sysLem musL now lncorporaLe Lhe shared values of socleLy as a whole wlLhouL excludlng or
dlscrlmlnaLlng agalnsL anyone lL musL evolve ln llghL of our background and needs ln Lhe Canadlan
conLexL lL seems Lo me LhaL a new analysls of Lhe slLuaLlon ls also needed lL ls Lrue LhaL Lhlngs have
already changed subsLanLlally 1he codlflcaLlon of Lhe law ls lncreaslngly exLenslve ln boLh sysLems
1here are more and more new sources of subsLanLlve law lncludlng lnLernaLlonal law and naLlve law
1ranslaLlon language Lralnlng for [udges and [urlsLs and exchanges beLween law schools are far more
common 1here ls wldespread access Lo crlmlnal [usLlce ln lrench aL Lhe Lrlal level LhroughouL Lhe
counLry Some unlverslLles offer a double law degree oLhers have organlzed oneyear work Lerms for
sLudenLs sLudylng Lhe oLher sysLem CLA! ls dolng lmporLanL work

1he negaLlve slde ls LhaL lrenchlanguage books arLlcles and cases from Cuebec conLlnue Lo be
lnaccesslble Lo Lhe vasL ma[orlLy of pracLlLloners and [udges ln Lhe common law provlnces and
LerrlLorles l have also noLlced LhaL Lhe blllnguallsm of many young Cuebec [urlsLs ls lnsufflclenL Lo glve
Lhem full access Lo Lngllshlanguage legal sources Cn Lhe fllpslde lf lrench ls noL undersLood ln mosL
of Lngllsh Canada how can we be expecLed Lo make use of Lhe lnslghLs lL offers ln resolvlng legal
dlspuLes?



SLPllalre v Canada (AC)



lAC1S 1he respondenL asked Lhe 1reasury 8oard Lo pay her ln her capaclLy as a survlvlng spouse and as
helr of her husbands successlon Lhe allowances prescrlbed ln Lhe AcL 1he 1reasury 8oard refused Lo
pay anyLhlng on Lhe basls of a publlc pollcy rule LhaL no one may proflL from hls own crlme 1he
respondenL Lhen applled Lo Lhe lederal CourL 1rlal ulvlslon for a declaraLory [udgmenL LhaL would
recognlze her rlghL Lo Lhe beneflLs provlded by Lhe AcL Allowlng Lhe appllcaLlon 8lals ! ruled LhaL Lhe
appllcable law was Lhe law of successlons deflned ln Lhe Clvll Code of Cuebec and LhaL under LhaL law
Lhere ls no unworLhlness Lo lnherlL by operaLlon of law unless Lhere ls an lnLenLlon Lo commlL Lhe
alleged crlme and LhaL Lhe offence of manslaughLer falls ouLslde Lhls rule



lSSuL 1he maln lssue on appeal was wheLher Lhe clvll law of Cuebec ls Lhe suppleLlve law where a courL
musL lnLerpreL and apply a federal enacLmenL whlch ls sllenL concernlng clvll rlghLs ln Cuebec and lf so
wheLher Lhe respondenL was unworLhy by operaLlon of law of lnherlLlng from her husband under
subsecLlon 620(1) of Lhe Clvll Code of Cuebec 8LASCnlnC uecary !A (dlssenLlng ln parL)

WhaL ls Lhe appllcable law Lhe clvll law of Cuebec or Lhe common law?

unless lndlcaLed oLherwlse no documenL oLher Lhan Lhe Clvll Code shall serve as ordlnary law ln
prlvaLe law ln Lhe federal leglslaLlon appllcable Lo Cuebec

Whenever a federal sLaLuLe LhaL ls Lo be applled Lo Cuebec resorLs Lo a prlvaLe law concepL wlLhouL
deflnlng lL and Lhe lnLerpreLaLlon AcL ls llkewlse sllenL or Lhe federal sLaLuLe does noL fully occupy Lhe
posslble fleld of prlvaLe law [urlsdlcLlon ln quesLlon lL ls Lhe Clvll Code LhaL supplles Lhe necessary
concepLual supporL for an lnLelllgenL appllcaLlon of LhaL sLaLuLe

ln Cuebec lL ls LrlLe law LhaL Lhe ordlnary law of Lhe provlnce ls consLlLuLed by Lhe Clvll Code of
Cuebec and Lhe Code of Clvll rocedure

Cf course Lhere are a number of slLuaLlons ln whlch Lhe clvll law ls requlred Lo assume whaL mlghL be
called a passlve role Such slLuaLlons lnclude every lnsLance where ln furLherance of lLs own purposes a
federal sLaLuLe asslgns cerLaln effecLs Lo [urldlcal acLs or facLs governed by Lhe Clvll Code More
frequenL however are slLuaLlons ln whlch Lhe clvll law plays an acLlve role by applylng dlrecLly Lo
complemenL federal prlvaLe law sLaLuLes [usL as lL does wlLh regard Lo provlnclal sLaLuLes of Lhe same
Lype MosL of Lhe Llme of course Lhese laws do noL conLaln all LhaL ls necessary for Lhelr appllcaLlon ln
one way or anoLher Lhey are almosL always lncompleLe 1hey employ clvll law concepLs wlLhouL
deflnlng Lhem Lhey refer Lo lnsLlLuLlons enshrlned ln Lhe Clvll Code or fall wlLLlngly or unwlLLlngly Lo
sLaLe all of Lhe prlnclples LhaL apply Lo Lhe fleld Lhey regulaLe 1he clvll law ls Lherefore called upon Lo flll
ln Lhe lacunae or gaps lefL by federal law

WhaL ln my vlew should deLermlne wheLher or noL lL ls necessary Lo resorL Lo Lhe prlvaLe law (ln
Cuebec Lhe clvll law) ls noL Lhe publlc or prlvaLe naLure of Lhe federal enacLmenL aL lssue buL Lhe facL
qulLe slmply LhaL Lhe federal enacLmenL ln a glven case musL be applled Lo slLuaLlons or relaLlonshlps
LhaL lL has noL deflned and LhaL cannoL be deflned oLher Lhan ln Lerms of Lhe persons affecLed

lL ls also worLh rememberlng Lhe complemenLary naLure of federal and clvll law all of Lhe lederal
sLaLuLes creaLed do noL creaLe an lndependenL legal sysLem 8ecause Lhese AcLs derogaLe from or add Lo
Lhe [us commune of each provlnce Lhey are supplemenLed by Lhe relevanL provlnclal law whlch ls used
Lo lnLerpreL Lhem and Lo apply Lhem 1here ls Lherefore a complemenLary relaLlonshlp beLween federal
leglslaLlon and Lhe [us commune of Lhe provlnces

l do noL Lhlnk Lhere can be any doubL LhaL Lhls parL of Lhe AcL whlch refers Lo successlon wlLhouL
deflnlng lL should be lnLerpreLed ln Cuebec ln llghL of Lhe clvll law 1he answer ls noL so obvlous when lL
comes Lo deflnlng Lhe rlghLs of Lhe survlvlng spouse 1hls expresslon as l sald earller ls deflned ln Lhe
AcL and furLhermore does noL correspond Lo any concepL LhaL ls deflned ln Lhe Clvll Code of Cuebec 1he
AcL appears prlma facle Lo consLlLuLe a compleLe code ln Lhls regard 8uL ls Lhls really Lhe case? WhaL
we are looklng for here ls noL who ls Lhe survlvlng spouse We know her WhaL we are asklng ourselves
raLher ls wheLher Lhls survlvlng spouse ls ellglble Lo recelve Lhe beneflL provlded by Lhe AcL

Slnce Lhe AcL ls sllenL on Lhe quesLlon of ellglblllLy Lhe ALLorney Ceneral submlLs LhaL Lhe leglslaLlve
vold musL be fllled by Lhe common law 1hls argumenL cannoL succeed slnce Lhe quesLlon of ellglblllLy ls
a quesLlon of clvll rlghLs and Lhe appllcable rule ls one of prlvaLe law and Lhus ln Lhls case of clvll law

1he Clvll Code of Cuebec recognlzes Lhe prlnclple LhaL no one should proflL from hls or her crlme 1he
quesLlon Lhen ls whaL Lhe clvll law undersLands by Lhe prlnclple LhaL no one should proflL from hls or her
crlme

ln ab lnLesLaLe and LesLamenLary successlon Lhere ls unworLhlness by operaLlon of law only lf Lhe helr
ls convlcLed of maklng an aLLempL on Lhe llfe of Lhe deceased Should Lhe clrcumsLances of Lhe crlme ln
Lhe case aL bar lead Lo Lhe dlsquallflcaLlon of Lhe respondenL glven LhaL Lhe respondenL has been
convlcLed of manslaughLer? l Lhlnk so lL would be Loo easy for anyone charged wlLh murder Lo avold Lhe
clvll consequences of a convlcLlon for murder by pleadlng gullLy Lo a reduced charge of manslaughLer
and avoldlng a Lrlal ln Lhe course of whlch all of Lhe relevanL facLs would be dlsclosed 1he clvll courL
faced wlLh a plea of gullLy Lo a charge of manslaughLer may be scepLlcal and conclude from Lhe scanL
evldence aL lLs dlsposal and glven Lhe balance of probablllLles LhaL Lhere was a sufflclenL lnLenLlon Lo
klll ln sum Lhe respondenL was forfelLed from her enLlLlemenL Lo Lhe beneflLs payable Lo a survlvlng
spouse under subsecLlon 13(3) of Lhe AcL buL she was enLlLled ln her capaclLy as helr Lo Lhe mlnlmum
amounL of $7320230 payable under subsecLlon 27(2) of arL l of Lhe AcL and Lo Lhe supplemenLary
deaLh beneflL of abouL $81730

LeLourneau !A 1he lederal CourL of Appeal has on many occaslons recognlzed Lhe complemenLarlLy of
Lhe Cuebec clvll law wlLh federal law where Lhe laLLer ls sllenL lL has also endeavored Lo harmonlze Lhe
effecLs of federal sLaLuLes ln order Lo avold posslble lnequlLles as a resulL of dlsparlLles whlle
acknowledglng a rlghL Lo be dlfferenL where harmonlzaLlon proves lmposslble 1he unworLhlness Lo
lnherlL under subsecLlon 620(1) of Lhe Clvll Code of Cuebec aLLaches Lo Lhe person convlcLed of maklng
an aLLempL on Lhe llfe of Lhe deceased 1he wordlng of Lhls arLlcle creaLes serlous dlfflculLles slnce Lhere
ls no offence ln Canadlan crlmlnal law of maklng an aLLempL on Lhe llfe of Lhe deceased 8uL SubsecLlon
620(1) of Lhe Clvll Code of Cuebec does noL exclude from lLs purvlew all cases of manslaughLer Where
as here a person commlLs aggravaLed assaulL or lnfllcLs serlous bodlly harm llkely Lo cause deaLh
knowlng LhaL deaLh may resulL buL belng lndlfferenL as Lo wheLher or noL lL resulLs LhaL person ls by
operaLlon of law unworLhy of lnherlLlng from hls vlcLlm Peld LhaL respondenL was dlsquallfled

ues[ardln !A 1o deLermlne Lhe meanlng of Lhe words survlvlng spouse and successlon when Lhe
federal sLaLuLe ln quesLlon Lhe ubllc Servlce SuperannuaLlon AcL ls sllenL lL ls necessary Lo refer Lo Lhe
Clvll Code of Cuebec and noL Lhe common law 1he Clvll Code of Cuebec ls Lhe foundaLlon noL only of all
oLher Cuebec laws buL also of Lhe relevanL provlslons of Lhe AcL ln quesLlon 1he flrsL paragraph of
arLlcle 620 of Lhe Code whlch sLaLes LhaL a person convlcLed of maklng an aLLempL on Lhe llfe of Lhe
deceased ls unworLhy of lnherlLlng by operaLlon of law does noL rule ouL Lhe appllcablllLy LhereLo of
some cases of manslaughLer leL alone Lhe manslaughLer commlLLed by Lhe respondenL Slnce Lhe
respondenL was convlcLed of maklng an aLLempL on Lhe llfe of Lhe deceased she was unworLhy by
operaLlon of law of lnherlLlng from her husband under LhaL provlslon and could noL recelve Lhe survlvlng
spouses annulLy

PLLu Appeal allowed

ConvenLlon

ConsLlLuLlonal convenLlons are a specles of unwrlLLen consLlLuLlonal norms 1he 8rlLlsh ConsLlLuLlon
was undersLood Lo lnclude cerLaln convenLlons LhaL govern Lhe worklngs and lnLeracLlon of Lhe branches
of Lhe sLaLe 8ecause Lhe ConsLlLuLlon AcL 1867 soughL Lo effecL a ConsLlLuLlon slmllar ln rlnclple Lo
LhaL of Lhe uk" Canada lnherlLed Lhese convenLlons 1he followlng ls a case where a speclflc
convenLlon was recognlzed

8e 8esoluLlon Lo amend ConsLlLuLlon lAC1S 1he 8eferences ln quesLlon were prompLed by Lhe
opposlLlon of elghL provlnces Lo a proposed 8esoluLlon publlshed on CcLober 2 1980 1he proposed
8esoluLlon conLalned an address Lo be presenLed Lo Per Ma[esLy 1he Cueen ln rlghL of Lhe unlLed
klngdom and a sLaLuLe Lo whlch was appended anoLher sLaLuLe provldlng for Lhe paLrlaLlon of Lhe
8nA AcL wlLh an amendlng procedure and a CharLer of 8lghLs and lreedoms 1he proposed
8esoluLlon carrled Lhe approval of only Lwo provlnces CnLarlo and new 8runswlck 1he opposlLlon of
Lhe oLhers save SaskaLchewan was based on Lhelr asserLlon LhaL boLh convenLlonally and legally Lhe
consenL of all Lhe provlnces was requlred for Lhe address Lo be forwarded Lo Per Ma[esLy wlLh Lhe
appended sLaLuLes 1he proposed 8esoluLlon was adopLed by Lhe Pouse of Commons and by Lhe SenaLe
on Aprll 23 and 24 1981 lSSuLS All parLles agreed LhaL proposed amended consLlLuLlon would affecL
provlnclal rlghLs and powers 2 key lssues (1) ls agreemenL of provlnces consLlLuLlonally (legally)
requlred? (2) ls Lhere a consLlLuLlonal convenLlon? 8LASCnlnC lssue 1 Ma[orlLy of 72 Legally"
provlnclal consenL was noL requlred lssue 2 ConsLlLuLlonal convenLlon 63 ma[orlLy found an
exlsLlng convenLlon LhaL a subsLanLlal measure of provlnclal consenL" ls requlred 8e provlnclal
consenL Lhere was precedenL Slnce 1930 all amendmenLs affecLlng Lhe provlnces were passed wlLh
provlnclal consenL Lhere were no excepLlons recedenL lndlcaLed lnLenL Lo have consenL conflrms
Canada's federal prlnclple8eason

1 Legal lssue" 72 1he Ma[orlLy no unanlmlLy for consLlLuLlonal amendmenL w/ all provlnces
lmpacLedC! Laskln Ma[orlLy Look vlew of legal auLhorlLy lL w/n power of feds Lo pass such a
resoluLlon and Lake lL on Lo Lhe uk

MarLland1he ulssenL federallsm" prlnclple8lLchle and precedenL Lo supporL Lhe vlew LhaL ln
law" provlnclal approval was requlred 33 hlsLory of amendmenLs reveals Lhe operaLlon of
consLlLuLlonal consLralnLs" A unllaLeral power Lo amend could see feds Lake away all provlnclal powers
Lhe ln Lerrorem argumenL Argued feds dolng lndlrecLly whaL cannoL do dlrecLly by havlng uk amend
consLlLuLlon w/o provlnclal approval

2 1he ConsLlLuLlonal ConvenLlon 63 lncludlng MarLlandMa[orlLy p 46 ConsLlLuLlonal8lLchle
convenLlons + consLlLuLlonal law LoLal consLlLuLlon" Ma[orlLy recognlzed convenLlons ConsLlLuLlonal
convenLlons unenforceable by courLs LxlsL and recognlzed Lo ensure LhaL framework of consL wlll be
operaLed wlLh prevalllng consLlLuLlonal values or prlnclples p44 1hree key elemenLs Lo convenLlon
(1) precedenL (2) lnLenL Lo be bound by Lhe convenLlon (3) reason for Lhe convenLlon

PLLu ConvenLlon needs subsLanLlal measure of provlnclal consenL" was noL supporLed by precedenL
arguably requlred unanlmous consenL 8uL here 8 provlnces opposed Lhe amendmenLs lL dld noL
maLLer lnsufflclenL provlnclal supporL

3 lundamenLal rlnclples of Lhe Canadlan Legal SysLem Cvervlew 8ule of law arllamenLary
soverelgnLy and consLlLuLlonal supremacy SeparaLlon of powers !udlclal lndependence

Cralk 8eadlng 8ackground ubllc law concerns Lhe relaLlonshlp beLween Lhe sLaLe and clvll socleLy
rlvaLe persons may only creaLe legal rlghLs and duLles b/w each oLher and only on Lhe basls of consenL
ln comparlson Lhe sLaLe holds all auLhorlLaLlve power (Lhe sLaLe may lmpose lLs dlcLaLes on persons
wlLhouL Lhelr lndlvldual consenL) ln a socleLy governed by Lhe rule of law Lhe sLaLe may noL acL
arblLrarlly 1he sLaLe musL lmpose lLs wlll lawfully and ln accordance wlLh law 1he sLarLlng polnL ln
assesslng Lhe leglLlmacy of sLaLe acLlon ls Lhe ConsLlLuLlon 1he ConsLlLuLlon esLabllshes Lhe
foundaLlonal law Lhrough whlch Lhe rule of law can occur Second lL esLabllshes Lhe respecLlve
relaLlonshlps beLween Lhe lnsLlLuLlons or branches of Lhe sLaLe LhaL perform Lhe funcLlons necessary Lo
operaLlonallze law ln socleLy

8ule of law Lveryone lncludlng Lhe powerful sLaLe musL acL ln accordance wlLh Lhe law 8ule of law ls
slmllar buL broader Lhan Lhe concepL of consLlLuLlonallsm whlch requlres LhaL all governmenL acLlon
comply wlLh Lhe ConsLlLuLlon rule of law ls a prerequlslLe Lo Lhe consLlLuLlonallsm 8ule of law means
LhaL laws musL meeL cerLaln quallLaLlve sLandards buL belng prospecLlve and belng general ln characLer
are noL necessarlly requlremenLs (see Lhe 8C v lmperlal 1obacco case) 1he rule of law ls an lmpllclL
prlnclple underlylng Lhe ConsLlLuLlon (and such prlnclples have full force of law) (see eg 8C v lmperlal
1obacco) See 8oncarelll v uuplessls where lL was held LhaL even a fully dlscreLlonary power ls sub[ecL
Lo Lhe rule of law See 8C v lmperlal 1obacco Canada where manufacLurers of Lobacco clalmed LhaL
leglslaLlon enacLed whlch favoured 8C governmenL ln many respecLs vlolaLed prlnclple of rule of law ln
Lhe case Lhe courL descrlbed Lhe rule of law as embraclng 3 prlnclples (1) 1he law ls supreme over
offlclals of Lhe governmenL as well as prlvaLe lndlvlduals (le Lhe law applles Lo everyone equally) (2)
8ule of law requlres Lhe creaLlon and malnLenance of an acLual order of poslLlve laws whlch preserves
and embodles Lhe more general prlnclple of normaLlve order (le musL be poslLlve laws) (3) 8equlres
LhaL Lhe relaLlonshlp beLween Lhe sLaLe and Lhe lndlvldual be regulaLed by law

unwrlLLen consLlLuLlonal prlnclples 8eference re Secesslon of Cuebec case conflrmed LhaL Lhe
ConsLlLuLlon conLalns unwrlLLen prlnclples 1hese unwrlLLen prlnclples are lmporLanL Lo undersLandlng
Lhe legal consLralnLs under whlch publlc power ls exerclsed by Lhe Canadlan sLaLe Lhey help lnLerpreL
Lhe ConsLlLuLlon Anu mosL sLrlklngly Lhey have Lhe force of law and serve Lo lmpose Su8S1An1lvL
llmlLs on Lhe powers of governmenL 1hese prlnclples are lmporLanL because problems or slLuaLlons
may arlse whlch hare noL expressly dealL wlLh by Lhe LexL of Lhe ConsLlLuLlon ln order Lo endure over
Llme a consLlLuLlon musL conLaln a comprehenslve seL of rules and prlnclples whlch are capable of
provldlng an exhausLlve deflnlLlon for our sysLem of governmenL" 8eference re Secesslon of Cuebec

ConsLlLuLlonal convenLlons ConsLlLuLlonal convenLlons are anoLher specles of unwrlLLen consLlLuLlonal
norms Lhey represenL accepLed undersLandlngs of how organs of Lhe governmenL operaLe 1hey have
parLlcular lmporLance wlLh respecL Lo Lhe worklngs of Lhe Crown and execuLlve governmenL 1hey were
lnherlLed from Lhe 8rlLlsh consLlLuLlonal sLrucLure see Lhe aLrlaLlon 8eference case whlch deflned
whaL a convenLlon ls and ln LhaL case recognlzed a convenLlon of subsLanLlal provlnclal agreemenL"

ConsLlLuLlonal supremacy WlLh s 32(1) of Lhe ConsLlLuLlon AcL 1982 Lhe Canadlan sysLem of
governmenL now operaLes under a prlnclple of consLlLuLlonal supremacy 1he essence of
consLlLuLlonallsm ln Canada ls LhaL all governmenL acLlon musL comply wlLh Lhe ConsLlLuLlon WlLh Lhe
adopLlon of Lhe CharLer Lhe Canadlan sysLem of governmenL was Lransformed Lo a slgnlflcanL exLenL
from a sysLem of arllamenLary supremacy Lo one of consLlLuLlonal supremacy

1he docLrlne of consLlLuLlonal supremacy carrles wlLh lL cerLaln necessary lmpllcaLlons LhaL speak Lo
oLher aspecLs of publlc law

(1) Plerarchy of law 1o sLaLe LhaL Lhe ConsLlLuLlon ls Canada's supreme law lmplles a hlerarchy of law
(2) Ad[udlcaLlon Cur sysLem accepLs LhaL consLlLuLlonal lnLerpreLaLlon cannoL be performed by Lhe
same body LhaL enacLs Lhe ordlnary law (le Lhe leglslaLure) Cur sysLem requlres LhaL Lhe leglslaLure wlll
be checked by Lhe [udlclary wlLh Lhe auLhorlLy Lo lnLerpreL and apply Lhe ConsLlLuLlon (3) CounLer
ma[orlLarlanlsm ln a sysLem of consLlLuLlonal supremacy Lhe power Lo lnLerpreL and enforce Lhe
ConsLlLuLlon agalnsL ma[orlLy preferences musL be presenL (4) AmendmenL by superma[orlLy requlred

1he SeparaLlon of powers docLrlne and parllamenLary supremacy 1he separaLlon of powers docLrlne
refers Lo Lhe dlvlslon of governmenLal funcLlons beLween Lhe leglslaLlve execuLlve and [udlclal branches
of Lhe sLaLe Lach branch ls deflned by lLs relaLlonshlp Lo law Lhe maklng of law (leglslaLure) Lhe
lmplemenLlng of law (execuLlve) and Lhe lnLerpreLlng and applylng Lhe law ([udlclary) ln Canada Lhere
ls no sLrlcL separaLlon 1he parllamenLary LradlLlon adopLed by Canada's founders glves preemlnence Lo
Lhe leglslaLlve branch Lo whlch Lhe execuLlve ls made subordlnaLe Also Lhe parllamenLary sysLem
conLemplaLes an overlapplng of personnel beLween Lhe leglslaLure and Lhe execuLlve 1he M and
members of hls/her CablneL who comprlse Lhe execuLlve councll advlslng" Lhe head of sLaLe are
elecLed members of Lhe leglslaLure 1hls ls noL Lhe case ln Lhe uS neverLheless Lhe dlsLlncLlon
beLween Lhe leglslaLure execuLlve and [udlclary ls lmporLanL Lo Canadlan law lL serves Lwo prlnclpal
purposes (1) a funcLlonal purpose of ldenLlfylng Lhe lnsLlLuLlonal homes of Lhe Lhree ma[or forms of
publlc power and (2) a normaLlve purpose of provldlng general boundarles for Lhe operaLlon of each
lnsLlLuLlon LeglslaLlve power and parllamenLary supremacy SeparaLed beLween Lhe federal (Lhe
arllamenL) and provlnclal leglslaLures 1he prlnclple of parllamenLary supremacy ls LhaL Canada's
federal and provlnclal leglslaLures are undersLood Lo be Lhe sole soverelgn holders of sLaLe auLhorlLy
sub[ecL Lo auLhorlLy belng dlvlded beLween Lhem along Lhe llnes seL ouL ln ss 91 and 92 of Lhe
ConsLlLuLlon AcL 1867

8uL wlLh Lhe ConsLlLuLlon AcL 1982 Canada adopLed boLh a CharLer of 8lghLs and lreedoms and an
express declaraLlon of consLlLuLlonal supremacy (whlch puL new llmlLs on Lhe lawmaklng ablllLy of elLher
level of leglslaLure) 1hus Lhe concepL of parllamenLary supremacy was modlfled (and consLlLuLlonal
supremacy Lrumps lL)

1he prlnclple of federallsm ulvldlng leglslaLlve power beLween a federal governmenL and reglonal
governmenLs each belng asslgned respecLlve spheres of [urlsdlcLlon lederallsm ls an unwrlLLen
prlnclple of Lhe Canadlan ConsLlLuLlon (see 8eference re Secesslon of Cuebec) Lhe SCC ln LhaL case
descrlbed Lhls prlnclple as a means of recognlzlng reglonal culLural dlverslLy aL Lhe foundlng of Canada
parLlcularly w/ respecL Lo Lhe dlsLlncL naLure of Cuebec as predomlnanLly a lrenchspeaklng socleLy

1he execuLlve power 1he execuLlve derlves any power lL has solely from Lhe laws or sLaLuLes passed by
Lhe leglslaLure 1haL ls Lhe execuLlve musL locaLe any auLhorlLy lL has Lo acL ln Canadlan socleLy from a
sLaLuLory source 1he execuLlve by consLlLuLlonal convenLlon ls responslble Lo Lhe leglslaLure whlch ls
essenLlally Lhe meanlng of responslble governmenL" ln Lhe parllamenLary LradlLlon

!udlclal lndependence !udlclal lndependence ls an elemenLal consLlLuLlonal docLrlne closely Lled Lo Lhe
separaLlon of powers !udlclal lndependence ensures LhaL [udges as arblLers of dlspuLes are aL a
compleLe llberLy Lo declde lndlvldual cases on Lhelr merlLs wlLhouL lnLerference !udlclal lndependence
also preserves Lhe separaLlon of powers b/w Lhe Lhree branches of our democracy by depollLlclzlng Lhe
relaLlonshlp beLween Lhe [udlclary and Lhe oLher Lwo branches

Cases

8eference re Secesslon of Cuebec (8ecognlzes and explalns Lhe lmporLance of 4 unwrlLLen consLlLuLlonal
prlnclples) naLure of unwrlLLen prlnclples 1hese prlnclples lnform and susLaln Lhe consLlLuLlonal LexL
Lhey are Lhe vlLal unsLaLed assumpLlons upon whlch Lhe LexL ls based 1he followlng dlscusslon
addresses Lhe four foundaLlonal consLlLuLlonal prlnclples LhaL are mosL germane for resoluLlon of Lhls
8eference federallsm democracy consLlLuLlonallsm and Lhe rule of law and respecL for mlnorlLy rlghLs
1hese deflnlng prlnclples funcLlon ln symblosls no slngle prlnclple can be deflned ln lsolaLlon from Lhe
oLhers nor does any one prlnclple Lrump or exclude Lhe operaLlon of any oLher use of unwrlLLen
prlnclples 1he prlnclples asslsL ln Lhe lnLerpreLaLlon of Lhe LexL and Lhe dellneaLlon of spheres of
[urlsdlcLlon Lhe scope of rlghLs and obllgaLlons and Lhe role of our pollLlcal lnsLlLuLlons Lqually
lmporLanL observance of and respecL for Lhese prlnclples ls essenLlal Lo Lhe ongolng process of
consLlLuLlonal developmenL and evoluLlon of our ConsLlLuLlon as a llvlng Lree Lo lnvoke Lhe famous
descrlpLlon ln Ldwards v ALLorneyCeneral for Canada

1he effecL of Lhe preamble Lo Lhe ConsLlLuLlon AcL 1867 was Lo lncorporaLe cerLaln consLlLuLlonal
prlnclples by reference a polnL made earller ln lraser v ubllc Servlce SLaff 8elaLlons 8oard ln Lhe
rovlnclal !udges 8eference we deLermlned LhaL Lhe preamble lnvlLes Lhe courLs Lo Lurn Lhose
prlnclples lnLo Lhe premlses of a consLlLuLlonal argumenL LhaL culmlnaLes ln Lhe fllllng of gaps ln Lhe
express Lerms of Lhe consLlLuLlonal LexL

lederallsm lL ls undlspuLed LhaL Canada ls a federal sLaLe ln a federal sysLem of governmenL such as
ours pollLlcal power ls shared by Lwo orders of governmenL Lhe federal governmenL on Lhe one hand
and Lhe provlnces on Lhe oLher Lach ls asslgned respecLlve spheres of [urlsdlcLlon by Lhe ConsLlLuLlon
AcL 1867 ln lnLerpreLlng our ConsLlLuLlon Lhe courLs have always been concerned wlLh Lhe federallsm
prlnclple lnherenL ln Lhe sLrucLure of our consLlLuLlonal arrangemenLs whlch has from Lhe beglnnlng
been Lhe lodesLar by whlch Lhe courLs have been gulded 1hls underlylng prlnclple of federallsm Lhen
has exerclsed a role of conslderable lmporLance ln Lhe lnLerpreLaLlon of Lhe wrlLLen provlslons of our
ConsLlLuLlon ln Lhe aLrlaLlon 8eference we conflrmed LhaL Lhe prlnclple of federallsm runs Lhrough Lhe
pollLlcal and legal sysLems of Canada

1he prlnclple of federallsm recognlzes Lhe dlverslLy of Lhe componenL parLs of ConfederaLlon and Lhe
auLonomy of provlnclal governmenLs Lo develop Lhelr socleLles wlLhln Lhelr respecLlve spheres of
[urlsdlcLlon 1he prlnclple of federallsm faclllLaLes Lhe pursulL of collecLlve goals by culLural and
llngulsLlc mlnorlLles whlch form Lhe ma[orlLy wlLhln a parLlcular provlnce 1he federal sLrucLure adopLed
aL ConfederaLlon enabled lrenchspeaklng Canadlans Lo form a numerlcal ma[orlLy ln Lhe provlnce of
Cuebec and so exerclse Lhe conslderable provlnclal powers conferred by Lhe ConsLlLuLlon AcL 1867 ln
such a way as Lo promoLe Lhelr language and culLure lL also made provlslon for cerLaln guaranLeed
represenLaLlon wlLhln Lhe federal arllamenL lLself

uemocracy 1he prlnclple of democracy has always lnformed Lhe deslgn of our consLlLuLlonal
sLrucLure and conLlnues Lo acL as an essenLlal lnLerpreLlve conslderaLlon Lo Lhls day 1he democracy
prlnclple can besL be undersLood as a sorL of basellne agalnsL whlch Lhe framers of our ConsLlLuLlon and
subsequenLly our elecLed represenLaLlves under lL have always operaLed lL ls perhaps for Lhls reason
LhaL Lhe prlnclple was noL expllclLly ldenLlfled ln Lhe LexL of Lhe ConsLlLuLlon AcL 1867 lLself

uemocracy ls commonly undersLood as belng a pollLlcal sysLem of ma[orlLy rule uemocracy
encompasses a number of values lncludlng respecL for Lhe lnherenL dlgnlLy of Lhe human person
commlLmenL Lo soclal [usLlce and equallLy accommodaLlon of a wlde varleLy of bellefs respecL for
culLural and group ldenLlLy and falLh ln soclal and pollLlcal lnsLlLuLlons whlch enhance Lhe parLlclpaLlon
of lndlvlduals and groups ln socleLy ln lnsLlLuLlonal Lerms democracy means LhaL each of Lhe
provlnclal leglslaLures and Lhe federal arllamenL ls elecLed by popular franchlse ln lndlvldual Lerms
Lhe rlghL Lo voLe ln elecLlons Lo Lhe Pouse of Commons and Lhe provlnclal leglslaLures and Lo be
candldaLes ln Lhose elecLlons ls guaranLeed Lo Lvery clLlzen of Canada by vlrLue of s 3 of Lhe CharLer
1he relaLlonshlp beLween democracy and federallsm means for example LhaL ln Canada Lhere may be
dlfferenL and equally leglLlmaLe ma[orlLles ln dlfferenL provlnces and LerrlLorles and aL Lhe federal level
no one ma[orlLy ls more or less leglLlmaLe Lhan Lhe oLhers as an expresslon of democraLlc oplnlon
alLhough of course Lhe consequences wlll vary wlLh Lhe sub[ecL maLLer ?eL democracy ln any real
sense of Lhe word cannoL exlsL wlLhouL Lhe rule of law lL ls Lhe law LhaL creaLes Lhe framework wlLhln
whlch Lhe soverelgn wlll ls Lo be ascerLalned and lmplemenLed 1o be accorded leglLlmacy
democraLlc lnsLlLuLlons musL resL ulLlmaLely on a legal foundaLlon

ConsLlLuLlonallsm and Lhe 8ule of Law 1he rule of law ls a hlghly LexLured expresslon lmporLlng
many Lhlngs whlch are beyond Lhe need of Lhese reasons Lo explore buL conveylng for example a sense
of orderllness of sub[ecLlon Lo known legal rules and of execuLlve accounLablllLy Lo legal auLhorlLy

AL lLs mosL baslc level Lhe rule of law vouchsafes Lo Lhe clLlzens and resldenLs of Lhe counLry a sLable
predlcLable and ordered socleLy ln whlch Lo conducL Lhelr affalrs lL provldes a shleld for lndlvlduals
from arblLrary sLaLe acLlon

roLecLlon of MlnorlLles 1here are a number of speclflc consLlLuLlonal provlslons proLecLlng mlnorlLy
language rellglon and educaLlon rlghLs undoubLedly Lhe Lhree oLher consLlLuLlonal prlnclples lnform
Lhe scope and operaLlon of Lhe speclflc provlslons LhaL proLecL Lhe rlghLs of mlnorlLles 1he concern of
our courLs and governmenLs Lo proLecL mlnorlLles has been promlnenL ln recenL years parLlcularly
followlng Lhe enacLmenL of Lhe CharLer undoubLedly one of Lhe key conslderaLlons moLlvaLlng Lhe
enacLmenL of Lhe CharLer and Lhe process of consLlLuLlonal [udlclal revlew LhaL lL enLalls ls Lhe
proLecLlon of mlnorlLles

Slngh v Canada (Lxplalns some of Lhe fundamenLal prlnclples dlscussed above) arllamenLary
soverelgnLy lL ls Lhe prerogaLlve of a soverelgn arllamenL Lo make lLs lnLenLlon known as Lo Lhe role
Lhe courLs are Lo play ln lnLerpreLlng applylng and enforclng lLs sLaLuLes Whlle Lhe courLs musL
deLermlne Lhe meanlng of sLaLuLory provlslons Lhey do so ln Lhe name of seeklng ouL Lhe lnLenLlon or
soverelgn wlll of arllamenL however purposlvely conLexLually or pollcyorlenLed may be Lhe
lnLerpreLaLlve meLhods used Lo aLLrlbuLe such meanlng

8oLh before and afLer 1982 our sysLem was and ls one of parllamenLary soverelgnLy exerclsable
wlLhln Lhe llmlLs of a wrlLLen consLlLuLlon rlma facle Lhen Lhls appears Lo be an lnLra vlres measure
by arllamenL Lo deflne prlvlleges of Lhe federal LxecuLlve ln Lhe furLherance of Lhe wellesLabllshed and
wellaccepLed prlnclples of CablneL secrecy ln Lhe absence of some clear and compelllng consLlLuLlonal
lmperaLlve Lo Lhe conLrary Lhe leglslaLlon ls valld and effecLlve

SeparaLlon of powers 1he appellanLs argue LhaL Lhere ls a docLrlne of separaLlon of powers whlch
prevenLs arllamenL from glvlng [udlclal funcLlons Lo Lhe LxecuLlve 1hey characLerlze Lhe lssuance of a
secLlon 39 cerLlflcaLe by Lhe Clerk of Lhe rlvy Councll as [udlclal ln naLure because lL lnvolves a
deLermlnaLlon of wheLher a courL should have access Lo cerLaln evldence

ln Canada and unllke Lhe uS and uk Lhere are many oLher examples of Lhe mlxlng of funcLlons
among Lhe varlous branches of governmenL Lhe mosL obvlous belng Lhe sLaLuLory power of Lhe
Supreme CourL of Canada Lo glve advlsory oplnlons a funcLlon noL counLenanced ln sysLems of Lrue
separaLlon of powers such as Lhe unlLed SLaLes 1he Canadlan ConsLlLuLlon does noL lnslsL on a sLrlcL
separaLlon of powers ln Lhe Cuebec Secesslon 8eference Lhe CourL unanlmously conflrmed lLs rlghL Lo
perform Lhls funcLlon as follows

Moreover Lhe Canadlan ConsLlLuLlon does noL lnslsL on a sLrlcL separaLlon of powers arllamenL and
Lhe provlnclal leglslaLures may properly confer oLher legal funcLlons on Lhe courLs and may confer
cerLaln [udlclal funcLlons on bodles LhaL are noL courLs 1he excepLlon Lo Lhls rule relaLes only Lo s 96
courLs 1hus even Lhough Lhe renderlng of advlsory oplnlons ls qulLe clearly done ouLslde Lhe
framework of adversarlal llLlgaLlon and such oplnlons are LradlLlonally obLalned by Lhe execuLlve from
Lhe law offlcers of Lhe Crown Lhere ls no consLlLuLlonal bar Lo Lhls CourLs recelpL of [urlsdlcLlon Lo
underLake such an advlsory role

lL ls noL surprlslng LhaL Lhe CourL reached Lhls concluslon as lL was Lhere engaged ln a celebraLed
exerclse of advlslng Lhe LxecuLlve answerlng several hypoLheLlcal quesLlons posed by Lhe Covernor ln
Councll ln Lhe absence of any real case or conLroversy ln Lhe legal sense (Lhe crlLerlon ln Lhe uS for
Lhe exerclse of [udlclal power) ln Lhe presenL conLexL lL ls dlfflculL Lo see how even on Lhe basls of Lhe
separaLlon of powers Lhe refusal of one branch of Lhe LxecuLlve Lhe rlvy Councll Cfflce Lo glve Lo
anoLher branch of Lhe LxecuLlve31 Lhe 8oyal Canadlan MounLed ollce ubllc ComplalnLs Commlsslon
boLh governed by Lhe laws of arllamenL access Lo cerLaln CablneL lnformaLlon can be seen Lo be a
vlolaLlon of Lhe separaLlon of powers !usL as Lhere are fundamenLal pollcy reasons of a quasl
consLlLuLlonal naLure as Lo why leglslaLors should have full conLrol of Lhelr procedures and [udges should
noL have Lo reveal Lhe processes by whlch Lhey reach a glven declslon so Lhe LxecuLlve (wlLh Lhe
guldance of an AcL of arllamenL) should be able Lo ldenLlfy Lhose documenLs generaLed ln lLs lnLernal
declslonmaklng process whlch should noL for Lhe lnLegrlLy of Lhe sysLem of CablneL secrecy be
dlsclosed

8ule of law 1he elemenLs of rule of law lnclude LhaL Lhe law ls supreme over Lhe acLs of boLh
governmenL and prlvaLe persons (one law for all) LhaL an acLual order of poslLlve laws be creaLed and
malnLalned Lo preserve normaLlve order and LhaL Lhe exerclse of all publlc power musL flnd lLs
ulLlmaLe source ln Lhe legal rule As Lhey sald puL anoLher way Lhe relaLlonshlp beLween Lhe sLaLe
and Lhe lndlvldual musL be regulaLed by law

ln Lhls case Lhe rule of law cannoL be Laken Lo lnvalldaLe a sLaLuLe whlch has Lhe effecL of allowlng
represenLaLlves of Lhe Crown Lo ldenLlfy cerLaln documenLs as beyond dlsclosure LhaL ls Lhe rule of law
does noL preclude a speclal law wlLh a speclal resulL deallng wlLh a speclal class of documenLs whlch for
long sLandlng reasons based on consLlLuLlonal prlnclples such as responslble governmenL have been
LreaLed dlfferenLly from prlvaLe documenLs ln a commerclal law sulL

lndependence of Lhe [udlclary AppellanLs' poslLlon ls essenLlally LhaL any llmlLaLlon on Lhe [urlsdlcLlon
of [udlclal bodles precludlng Lhem ln cerLaln lnsLances from engaglng ln Lhe revlew of governmenL
declslons ls a vlolaLlon of a consLlLuLlonally guaranLeed lndependence of Lhe [udlclary 1he 1rlal !udge
correcLly l belleve held LhaL Lhls dld noL consLlLuLe an lnLerference wlLh lndependence as measured by
Lhe now wellesLabllshed rules ln valenLe v 1he Cueen SecLlon 39 ln no way lnLerferes wlLh Lhe securlLy
of Lenure Lhe flnanclal securlLy or Lhe admlnlsLraLlve lndependence of [udges as dealL wlLh ln LhaL case

8eference re 8umuneraLlon of !udges of Lhe rov CourL of Ll lAC1S CerLaln sLaLuLes creaLed by
provlnclal governmenLs lnLerfered wlLh [udlclal lndependence of provlnclal courLs alLhough lnvalldaLed
Lhose lnvalldaLlons dldn'L cure all of Lhe unconsLlLuLlonal effecLs of Lhe relevanL provlslons 1he upshoL
of Lhls [udgmenL ls LhaL every person found gullLy by a provlnclal courL ln one of Lhe relevanL provlnces
whlle Lhe unconsLlLuLlonal laws were belng applled has suffered a breach of hls or her s 11(d) rlghLs
(rlghL Lo be heard by an lndependenL and lmparLlal Lrlbunal") 1he provlnces have requesLed
declaraLlons LhaL Lhese declslons cannoL be reopened (le Lhey remaln valld) 8LASCnlnC Cne effecL
Lo Lhose leglslaLlve provlslons LhaL had undermlned Lhe flnanclal securlLy of provlnclal courL [udges was
Lo render Lhose Lrlbunals dependenL 1he reLroacLlve annulmenL of Lhe salary reducLlons does noL
change Lhe facL LhaL LhaL provlnclal courL [udges were noL lndependenL durlng Lhe perlod of Llme when
Lhose reducLlons were lmposed on Lhem uCC18lnL Cl nLCLSSl1l? 8uL here ls no need Lo make Lhose
declaraLlons asL declslons cannoL be reopened ln facL Lhere ls a docLrlne LhaL recognlzes LhaL ln some
slLuaLlons lL ls beLLer Lo have a nonlmparLlal and lndependenL [udge Lo none aL all Lhe docLrlne of
necesslLy 1he docLrlne of necesslLy flnds lLs source ln Lhe rule of law Lhe docLrlne of necesslLy ls applled
Lo prevenL a fallure of [usLlce 8uL Lhere are 2 quallflcaLlons Lo Lhe rule (1) Lhe rule wlll noL apply ln
clrcumsLances where lLs appllcaLlon would lnvolve poslLlve and subsLanLlal ln[usLlce (2) when Lhe rule
does apply lL only applles Lo Lhe exLenL LhaL necesslLy [usLlfles Llke res [udlcaLa Lhe docLrlne of
necesslLy recognlzes Lhe lmporLance of flnallLy and conLlnulLy ln Lhe admlnlsLraLlon of [usLlce Powever
Lhese docLrlnes should be applled rarely and wlLh greaL clrcumspecLlon as boLh preserve Lhe effecLs of
an unconsLlLuLlonal law

8ef re lndependence and lmparLlallLy of !udges of Lhe rov CourL of Ll (ldenLlfles [udlclal
lndependence as sLemmlng from an unwrlLLen consLlLuLlonal prlnclple and geLs lnLo a deLalled
dlscusslon of flnanclal securlLy aL Lhe lnsLlLuLlonal level") lAC1S A sLaLuLe decreased provlnclal courL
[usLlces' salarles b/c of a provlnclal deflclL Concern LhaL Lhls eroded [udlclal lndependence guaranLeed
under s 11(1)(d) of CharLer lSSuL Appeal ralses a range of lssues relaLlng Lo Lhe lndependence of
provlnclal courLs buL are unlLed Lwo lnLerrelaLed lssues (1) WheLher and how Lhe guaranLee of [udlclal
lndependence ln s 11(d) of Lhe Canadlan CharLer of 8lghLs and lreedoms resLrlcLs Lhe manner by and
Lhe exLenL Lo whlch provlnclal governmenLs and leglslaLures can reduce Lhe salarles of provlnclal courL
[udges (2) WheLher Lhe consLlLuLlonal home of [udlclal lndependence lles ln Lhe express provlslons of
Lhe ConsLlLuLlon AcLs 1867 Lo 1982 or exLerlor Lo Lhe secLlons of Lhose documenLs 8LASCnlnC
8ackground

LlLlgaLlon has ensued beLween Lwo prlmary organs of our consLlLuLlonal sysLem Lhe execuLlve and
Lhe [udlclary whlch boLh serve lmporLanL and lnLerdependenL roles ln Lhe admlnlsLraLlon of [usLlce
1he aspecL of [udlclal lndependence whlch ls engaged by Lhe lmpugned reducLlons ln salary flnanclal
securlLy has only been dealL wlLh ln any depLh by valenLe v 1he Cueen 8uL only lndlvldual flnanclal
securlLy was consldered llnanclal securlLy musL be undersLood as merely an aspecL of [udlclal
lndependence whlch ln Lurn ls noL an end ln lLself !udlclal lndependence ls valued because lL serves
lmporLanL socleLal goals lL ls a means Lo secure Lhose goals Cne of Lhese goals ls Lhe malnLenance
of publlc confldence ln Lhe lmparLlallLy of Lhe [udlclary whlch ls essenLlal Lo Lhe effecLlveness of Lhe
courL sysLem lndependence conLrlbuLes Lo Lhe percepLlon LhaL [usLlce wlll be done ln lndlvldual cases
AnoLher soclal goal served by [udlclal lndependence ls Lhe malnLenance of Lhe rule of law one aspecL of
whlch ls Lhe consLlLuLlonal prlnclple LhaL Lhe exerclse of all publlc power musL flnd lLs ulLlmaLe source ln
a legal rule lL ls wlLh Lhese broader ob[ecLlves ln mlnd LhaL Lhese reasons and Lhe dlsposlLlon of Lhese
appeals musL be undersLood

1he unwrlLLen 8asls of !udlclal lndependence

!udlclal lndependence ls aL rooL an unwrlLLen consLlLuLlonal prlnclple AlLhough several secLlons of Lhe
ConsLlLuLlon guaranLee Lhlngs such as flnanclal securlLy (eg s 11(d) of Lhe CharLer)) Lhese don'L provlde
an express code for Lhe proLecLlon of [udlclal lndependence for all Lypes of courLs 1here are serlous
llmlLaLlons wlLh Lhe vlew LhaL express provlslons of Lhe ConsLlLuLlon comprlse an exhausLlve and
deflnlLlve code for Lhe proLecLlon of [udlclal lndependence 1he flrsL and mosL serlous problem ls LhaL
Lhe range of courLs whose lndependence ls proLecLed by Lhe wrlLLen provlslons of Lhe ConsLlLuLlon
conLalns large gaps SecLlons 96100 for example only proLecL Lhe lndependence of [udges of Lhe
superlor dlsLrlcL and counLy courLs and even Lhen noL ln a unlform or conslsLenL manner 1hus whlle
ss 96 and 100 proLecL Lhe core [urlsdlcLlon and Lhe flnanclal securlLy respecLlvely of all Lhree Lypes of
courLs (superlor dlsLrlcL and counLy) s 99 on lLs Lerms only proLecLs Lhe securlLy of Lenure of superlor
courL [udges Moreover ss 96100 do noL apply Lo provlnclally appolnLed lnferlor courLs oLherwlse
known as provlnclal courLs SecLlon 11(d) ls llmlLed as well (only applles Lo bodles whlch exerclse
[urlsdlcLlon over offences) So Lhe lndependence of provlnclal courLs ad[udlcaLlng ln famlly law maLLers
for example would noL be consLlLuLlonally proLecLed 1he reamble has been used as a reference
polnL Lo flll Lhe gaps ln Lhe ConsLlLuLlon Lxample where Lhe CourL has lnferred a baslc rule of Canadlan
consLlLuLlonal law desplLe Lhe sllence of Lhe consLlLuLlonal LexL ls Lhe docLrlne of paramounLcy Also
preamble recognlzes and afflrms LhaL we are governed by a arllamenLary democracy Cne lmpllcaLlon
of Lhe preamble's recognlLlon and afflrmaLlon of arllamenLary democracy ls Lhe consLlLuLlonallzaLlon of
leglslaLlve prlvlleges for provlnclal leglslaLures and mosL llkely for arllamenL as well 1hese prlvlleges
are necessary Lo ensure LhaL leglslaLures can perform Lhelr funcLlons free from lnLerference by Lhe
Crown and Lhe courLs 1hese examples Lhe docLrlnes of full falLh and credlL and paramounLcy Lhe
remedlal lnnovaLlon of suspended declaraLlons of lnvalldlLy Lhe recognlLlon of Lhe consLlLuLlonal sLaLus
of Lhe prlvlleges of provlnclal leglslaLures Lhe vesLlng of Lhe power Lo regulaLe pollLlcal speech wlLhln
federal [urlsdlcLlon and Lhe lnferral of lmplled llmlLs on leglslaLlve soverelgnLy wlLh respecL Lo pollLlcal
speech lllusLraLe Lhe speclal legal effecL of Lhe preamble 1he preamble ldenLlfles Lhe organlzlng
prlnclples of Lhe ConsLlLuLlon AcL 1867 and lnvlLes Lhe courLs Lo Lurn Lhose prlnclples lnLo Lhe premlses
of a consLlLuLlonal argumenL LhaL culmlnaLes ln Lhe fllllng of gaps ln Lhe express Lerms of Lhe
consLlLuLlonal LexL 1he same approach applles Lo Lhe proLecLlon of [udlclal lndependence

SecLlon 11(d) of Lhe CharLer

1hree core characLerlsLlcs of [udlclal lndependence lnclude securlLy of Lenure flnanclal securlLy and
admlnlsLraLlve lndependence And Lhere are 2 dlmenslons of [udlclal lndependence lndlvldual (le of
Lhe [udge) and lnsLlLuLlonal/collecLlve (le of Lhe courL or Lrlbunal of whlch LhaL [udge ls a member) 1he
concepLual dlsLlncLlon beLween Lhe core characLerlsLlcs and Lhe dlmenslons of [udlclal lndependence
suggesLs LhaL lL may be posslble for a core characLerlsLlc Lo have boLh an lndlvldual and an lnsLlLuLlonal
or collecLlve dlmenslon llnanclal securlLy has boLh an lndlvldual and lnsLlLuLlonal dlmenslon A
reasonable person LesL employed Lo deLermlne wheLher Lhere ls [udlclal lndependence under s 11(d)

lnsLlLuLlonal lndependence

1he lnsLlLuLlonal lndependence of Lhe courLs emerges from Lhe loglc of federallsm whlch requlres an
lmparLlal arblLer Lo seLLle [urlsdlcLlonal dlspuLes beLween Lhe federal and provlnclal orders of
governmenL 8uL Lhe lnsLlLuLlonal lndependence of Lhe [udlclary reflecLs a deeper commlLmenL Lo Lhe
separaLlon of powers beLween and amongsL Lhe leglslaLlve execuLlve and [udlclal organs of governmenL
1he polnL l wanL Lo make flrsL ls LhaL Lhe lnsLlLuLlonal role demanded of Lhe [udlclary under our
ConsLlLuLlon ls a role whlch we now expecL of provlnclal courL [udges lL ls worLh noLlng LhaL Lhe
lncreased role of provlnclal courLs ln enforclng Lhe provlslons and proLecLlng Lhe values of Lhe
ConsLlLuLlon ls ln parL a funcLlon of a leglslaLlve pollcy of granLlng greaLer [urlsdlcLlon Lo Lhese courLs
CfLen leglslaLlon of Lhls naLure denles llLlganLs Lhe cholce of wheLher Lhey musL appear before a
provlnclal courL or a superlor courL As l explaln below Lhe consLlLuLlonal response Lo Lhe shlfLlng
[urlsdlcLlonal boundarles of Lhe courLs ls Lo guaranLee LhaL cerLaln fundamenLal aspecLs of [udlclal
lndependence be en[oyed noL only by superlor courLs buL by provlnclal courLs as well

CollecLlve llnanclal SecurlLy

1he faceLs of collecLlve flnanclal securlLy all flow from Lhe lmperaLlve LhaL Lhe relaLlonshlp beLween
Lhe [udlclary and oLher branches of governmenL be depollLlclzed 1hls lmperaLlve demands LhaL Lhe
courLs boLh be free and appear Lo be free from pollLlcal lnLerference Lhrough economlc manlpulaLlon by
Lhe oLher branches of governmenL and LhaL Lhey noL become enLangled ln Lhe pollLlcs of remuneraLlon
from Lhe publlc purse 1hese dlfferenL componenLs of Lhe lnsLlLuLlonal flnanclal securlLy of Lhe courLs
lnhere ln my vlew ln a fundamenLal prlnclple of Lhe Canadlan ConsLlLuLlon Lhe separaLlon of powers
1he lnsLlLuLlonal lndependence of Lhe courLs ls lnexLrlcably bound up wlLh Lhe separaLlon of powers
because ln order Lo guaranLee LhaL Lhe courLs can proLecL Lhe ConsLlLuLlon Lhey musL be proLecLed by a
seL of ob[ecLlve guaranLees agalnsL lnLruslons by Lhe execuLlve and leglslaLlve branches of governmenL
1he separaLlon of powers requlres aL Lhe very leasL LhaL some funcLlons musL be excluslvely reserved
Lo parLlcular bodles WhaL ls aL lssue here ls Lhe characLer of Lhe relaLlonshlps beLween Lhe leglslaLure
and Lhe execuLlve on Lhe one hand and Lhe [udlclary on Lhe oLher 1hese relaLlonshlps should be
depollLlclzed 1haL ls Lhe leglslaLure and execuLlve cannoL and cannoL appear Lo exerL pollLlcal
pressure on Lhe [udlclary and conversely LhaL members of Lhe [udlclary should exerclse reserve ln
speaklng ouL publlcly on lssues of general publlc pollcy LhaL are or have Lhe poLenLlal Lo come before Lhe
courLs LhaL are Lhe sub[ecL of pollLlcal debaLe and whlch do noL relaLe Lo Lhe proper admlnlsLraLlon of
[usLlce 1he depollLlclzaLlon ls largely governed by convenLlon 1he depollLlclzaLlon of Lhese
relaLlonshlps ls so fundamenLal Lo Lhe separaLlon of powers and hence Lo Lhe Canadlan ConsLlLuLlon
LhaL Lhe provlslons of Lhe ConsLlLuLlon such as s 11(d) of Lhe CharLer musL be lnLerpreLed ln such a
manner as Lo proLecL Lhls prlnclple Powever Lhe depollLlclzed relaLlonshlps l have been descrlblng
creaLe dlfflculL problems when lL comes Lo [udlclal remuneraLlon Cn Lhe one hand remuneraLlon from
Lhe publlc purse ls an lnherenLly pollLlcal concern ln Lhe sense LhaL lL lmpllcaLes general publlc pollcy
Cn Lhe oLher hand Lhe facL remalns LhaL [udges alLhough Lhey musL ulLlmaLely be pald from publlc
monles are noL clvll servanLs WlLh respecL Lo Lhe [udlclary Lhe deLermlnaLlon of Lhe level of
remuneraLlon from Lhe publlc purse ls pollLlcal ln anoLher sense because lL ralses Lhe specLre of pollLlcal
lnLerference Lhrough economlc manlpulaLlon An unscrupulous governmenL could uLlllze lLs auLhorlLy Lo
seL [udges' salarles as a vehlcle Lo lnfluence Lhe course and ouLcome of ad[udlcaLlon 1he challenge
whlch faces Lhe CourL ln Lhese appeals ls Lo ensure LhaL Lhe seLLlng of [udlclal remuneraLlon remalns
conslsLenL Lo Lhe exLenL posslble glven LhaL [udlclal salarles musL ulLlmaLely be flxed by one of Lhe
pollLlcal organs of Lhe ConsLlLuLlon Lhe execuLlve or Lhe leglslaLure and LhaL Lhe seLLlng of
remuneraLlon from Lhe publlc purse ls as a resulL lnherenLly pollLlcal wlLh Lhe depollLlclzed
relaLlonshlp beLween Lhe [udlclary and Lhe oLher branches of governmenL Cur Lask ln oLher words ls Lo
ensure compllance wlLh one of Lhe sLrucLural requlremenLs of Lhe Canadlan ConsLlLuLlon" 1he Lhree
componenLs of Lhe lnsLlLuLlonal or collecLlve dlmenslon of flnanclal securlLy Lo my mlnd fulflll Lhls goal

(1) !udlclal salarles can be reduced so long as economlc manlpulaLlon occurs Lhrough an lndependenL
body comblned wlLh a [udlclal compensaLlon commlsslon (beLween Lhe [udlclary and oLher branches of
governmenL) LhaL would depollLlclze Lhe process 1he commlsslons musL be lndependenL 1he salary
commlsslons musL be ob[ecLlve llnally Lhe commlsslon musL also be effecLlve Whlle noL blndlng Lhese
revlews should be Laken serlously

(2) no negoLlaLlons on [udlclal remuneraLlon b/w Lhe [udlclary and Lhe execuLlve/leglslaLure (as Lhey are
lndellbly pollLlcal Lhey would undermlne publlc confldence ln Lhe lmparLlallLy of Lhe lndependence of
Lhe [udlclary also a confllcL of lnLeresL would arlse as Lhe Crown ls almosL always a parLy Lo a crlmlnal
prosecuLlon)

(3) !udlclal salarles may noL fall below a mlnlmum level (Lhe ConsLlLuLlon proLecLs [udlclal salarles from
falllng below an accepLable mlnlmum level 1he reason lL does ls for flnanclal securlLy Lo proLecL Lhe
[udlclary from pollLlcal lnLerference Lhrough economlc manlpulaLlon and Lo Lhereby ensure publlc
confldence ln Lhe admlnlsLraLlon of [usLlce lf salarles are Loo low Lhere ls always Lhe danger however
speculaLlve LhaL members of Lhe [udlclary could be LempLed Lo ad[udlcaLe cases ln a parLlcular way ln
order Lo secure a hlgher salary from Lhe execuLlve or Lhe leglslaLure or Lo recelve beneflLs from one of
Lhe llLlganLs) AppllcaLlon of Legal rlnclples

1he Supreme CourL faulLed Lhe governmenLs of rlnce Ldward lsland and AlberLa for nelLher
consulLlng salary commlsslons nor havlng such bodles Lo begln wlLh lor Lhls reason Lhe acLlons of Lhese
governmenLs breached secLlon 11(d) of Lhe CharLer of 8lghLs ManlLoba dld have a salary commlsslon
buL lLs acLlons were unconsLlLuLlonal because Lhe provlnclal governmenL dld noL use lL Slnce Lhese
conslderaLlons were made uslng secLlon 11(d) Lhe CourL consldered wheLher vlolaLlons of Lhese rlghLs
could be [usLlfled under secLlon 1 of Lhe CharLer of 8lghLs as ls normal procedure SecLlon 1 Lyplcally
requlres a valld governmenL reason for vlolaLlng rlghLs and ln Lhls case rlnce Ldward lsland and
AlberLas acLlons falled Lhe secLlon 1 LesL because Lhey dld noL explaln why Lhey dld noL have salary
commlsslons Llkewlse ManlLoba dld noL explaln why Lhey dld noL use Lhelr salary commlsslon

CCMMLn1 AlLhough Lhls case was seLLled uslng s 11(d) Lhe CourL wenL on Lo recognlze Lhe general
prlnclple of [udlclal lndependence as an unwrlLLen rule

4 8aslc ArchlLecLure of Lhe Canadlan Legal SysLem Cvervlew 8elaLlonshlp beLween branches of
governmenL [udlclal revlew consLralnLs on power of each branch (1) LxecuLlve 8ranch sLrucLure
powers (eg delegaLed leglslaLlon) lnLroducLlon Lo naLure and role of admlnlsLraLlve Lrlbunals (2)
LeglslaLlve 8ranch sLrucLure and operaLlon of arllamenL leglslaLlve process formaLlon of sLaLuLe
versus regulaLlons eLhlcs and accounLablllLy (3) !udlclal 8ranch Canadlan courL sysLems appolnLmenL
of [udges [udlclal lndependence

LeglslaLlve 8ranch (ChapLer 4 of Cralk) SLrucLure/operaLlon of arllamenL arllamenL conslsLs of Lhe
Cueen an upper Pouse sLyled SenaLe and Pouse of Commons s 17 ConsLlLuLlon AcL 1he Monarch
and Covernor Ceneral Cueen ls essenLlally Canada's head of sLaLe Covernor general ln pracLlce
exerclses Cueen's powers Canadlan head of sLaLe ls noL elecLed hls/her ldenLlLy depends ln Lhe case
of Monarch on blrLh and ln Lhe case of governor general on appolnLmenL SelecLlon of Monarch ls
dlscrlmlnaLory and has been challenged wlLh CharLer see eg C'uonohue v 1he Cueen whlch
declded LhaL Canada cannoL unllaLerally change successlon rules ln pracLlce Lhe monarch appolnLs Lhe
governor general 8uL Lhe monarch does so on Lhe AuvlCL of Lhe M (a consLlLuLlonal convenLlon)

1he SenaLe Canada has an unelecLed upper chambers of Lhe federal leglslaLure Lhe ConsLlLuLlon
expressly anLlclpaLes Lhe appolnLmenL of senaLors by Lhe governor general (see s 24 of Lhe ConsLlLuLlon
AcL 1867) ln exerclslng LhaL power Lhe governor general follows Lhe advlce of Lhe M as requlred by
consLlLuLlonal convenLlon 1wo cases aLLempLed Lo dlspuLe Lhls process buL falled (see 8rown v
AlberLa where lL was held LhaL Lhe appellanL dldn'L ralse legal lssue and Samson v AC where lL was
held LhaL Lhe CourL cannoL feLLer Lhe governor general's dlscreLlon)

Pouse of Commons Members of Lhe Pouse of Commons are elecLed Lach rldlng elecLs 1 member Lo
Lhe house (Lhe currenL number of dlsLrlcLs and Lhus members of arllamenL ls 308) Canada's elecLoral
sysLem ls referred Lo as a slnglemember plurallLy" or flrsLpasLLheposL" sysLem AfLer an elecLlon
Lhe parLy wlLh Lhe mosL elecLed represenLaLlves usually becomes Lhe governlng parLy 1he leader of
Lhls parLy becomes Lhe M and chooses people Lo head Lhe varlous governmenL deparLmenLs All Lhe
elecLed candldaLes have a seaL ln Lhe Pouse of Commons where Lhey voLe on 8llls unLll recenLly Lhe
Canada LlecLlons AcL requlred a reglsLered parLy Lo run candldaLes ln aL leasL 30 elecLoral dlsLrlcLs 1hls
rule was sLruck down by Lhe SCC ln llgueroa v Canada

8rlnglng Lhe consLlLuenL elemenLs of arllamenL LogeLher Summonlng Lhe calllng of arllamenL
rorogaLlon once summoned a glven arllamenL ls generally dlvlded lnLo several sesslons separaLed
by a prorogaLlon A prorogaLlon ls Lhe prerogaLlve of Lhe governor general acLlng on Lhe advlce of Lhe
M SecLlon 3 of Lhe CharLer provldes LhaL Lhere shall be a slLLlng of arllamenL and of each leglslaLure aL
leasL once every 12 monLhs (le arllamenL cannoL be enLlrely sldellned) ulssoluLlon Lhe dlssoluLlon of
arllamenL prompLs a new elecLoral cycle governed by Lhe Canada LlecLlons AcL 1he ConsLlLuLlon AcL
1867 (s 3) and Lhe CharLer (s 4(1)) llmlL Lhe duraLlon of a Commons Lo 3 years excepL ln Llmes of war or
lnsurrecLlon (noLe LhaL Lhe M musL reslgn or seek parllamenLary dlssoluLlon afLer a no confldence
voLe as a maLLer of consLlLuLlonal convenLlon)

key acLors ln parllamenL (a) ollLlcal parLles (b) 1he speaker (c) arllamenLary commlLLees

arllamenLary procedure/law maklng (a) Source of parllamenLary law arllamenLary law le Lhe rules
deLermlnlng parllamenLary procedure flows from an array of sources lncludlng sLaLuLe ConsLlLuLlon eLc

(1) ConsLlLuLlon and sLaLuLe 1he sLarLlng polnL Lo undersLandlng parllamenLary law ls Lhe ConsLlLuLlon
1he Canadlan ConsLlLuLlon lncorporaLes 8rlLlsh parllamenLary LradlLlons vla Lhe preamble Lo Lhe
ConsLlLuLlon AcL 1867 1haL AcL speaks of arllamenL possesslng parllamenLary prlvlleges" and so
doeas Lhe arllamenL of Canada AcL 1he lmporLanL parL ln Lhls secLlon ls parllamenLary prlvllege
arllamenLary prlvlleges are Lhose rlghLs necessary Lo ensure LhaL leglslaLures can perform Lhelr
funcLlons free from lnLerference by Lhe Crown and Lhe courLs rlvllege" ln Lhls conLexL usually means
legal exempLlon from some duLy burden eLc Lo whlch oLhers are sub[ecL See Canada v vald for an
ouLllne of Lhe scope of parllamenLary prlvllege ln Lhls case Lhe dlsmlsslng of a chauffeur was noL
consldered parL of parllamenLary lmmunlLy) nC1L 1he ldea of prlvllege reflecLs and enforces Lhe
separaLlon of powers speclflcally Lhe separaLlon beLween arllamenL/leglslaLures and courLs

(2) SLandlng orders Canada's leglslaLures can admlnlsLer LhaL parL of a sLaLuLe relaLlng Lo lLs lnLernal
procedure as well as Lo deLermlne Lhe conLenLs of such Lhlngs as SLandlng Crders on rocedure
wlLhouL courL lnLervenLlon SLandlng orders are rules of procedure adopLed by aL leasL a slmple
ma[orlLy voLe of Lhe members of Lhe Commons SLandlng orders consLlLuLe a falrly comprehenslve code
of Commons operaLlons lncludlng ln relaLlon Lo Commons law maklng

(b) arllamenLary law maklng

Scope of law maklng [urlsdlcLlon (subsLanLlve law focus) arllamenLary supremacy means LhaL
arllamenL ls Lhe source of all power and arllamenL has Lhe [urlsdlcLlon Lo make or unmake any law
whaLever nC1L Some suggesL LhaL unllke Lhe arllamenL aL WesLmlnsLer Lhe arllamenL of Canada ls
nC1 supreme Lhe dlvlslon of powers found ln ss 91 and 92 for example ldenLlfy cerLaln sub[ecLs ln
respecL of whlch arllamenL cannoL leglslaLe Lhen also conslder Lhe llmlLaLlons puL on lL by Lhe CharLer
noneLheless Lhe scope of arllamenL's lawmaklng [urlsdlcLlon ls endless so law ls lL conforms Lo Lhe
ConsLlLuLlon (rules governlng dlvlslon of powers beLween fed and prov leglslaLures) and consLlLuLlonally
proLecLed lndlvldual rlghLs and llberLles found ln Lhe CharLer (Lhls goes back Lo parllamenLary
supremacy) arllamenL ls Lherefore even free Lo pass careless or bad laws so long as lL sLlcks wlLhln
lLs ConsLlLuLlonal mandaLe (see 8acon v SaskaLchewan Crop lnsurance where Lhe appllcanL falled ln
uslng Lhe rule of law prlnclple ln an aLLempL Lo challenge an allegedly bad law) lurLher even lf
arllamenL ls Lrlcked lnLo passlng a law by Lhe execuLlve LhaL alone ls lnsufflclenL for a courL Lo sLrlke lL
down such an lssue ls noL [usLlclable (see 1urner v Canada) lurLher Canadlans aren'L enLlLled Lo due
process or procedural falrness ln Lhe lawmaklng process (so long as Lhe procedures ln Lhe ConsLlLuLlon
have been meL) CourLs say LhaL Lhls aspecL of law maklng should be looked afLer by
arllamenL/leglslaLures Lhemselves 1o do so would Lrench parllamenLary prlvllege (see Wells v
newfoundland as an example) 1hls means LhaL arllamenL would be free Lo acL unfalrly such as by
passlng a law wlLhouL any noLlce Lo Lhose lmpllcaLed ln lL 8uL arllamenL can be held somewhaL ln
check lf lL passes arblLrary laws eg lf lL sLrlps away conLracLual rlghLs (by leglslaLlon) may be held
responslble for eg paylng compensaLlon Lo Lhose Lhe leglslaLlon affecLs (Wells v newfoundland) 1hus
no prudenLlal consLralnLs exlsL on arllamenL excepL Lhose found ln Lhe ConsLlLuLlon 1o demonsLraLe
Lhe breadLh of arllamenL's law maklng power lL has been held LhaL Lhere can be exproprlaLlon of
properLy wlLhouL compensaLlon so long leglslaLlon makes such an lnLenL clear (AuLhorson v Canada)
1haL's bull shlL!

LLhlcs ln law maklng (focusslng on confllcLs of lnLeresL) arllamenL may be soverelgn buL lndlvldual
parllamenLarlans are noL 1hus alLhough Lhe dlscusslon up Lo Lhls polnL suggesLs LhaL no prudenLlal
consLralnLs exlsL on arllamenL oLher Lhan Lhose found ln Lhe ConsLlLuLlon lL musL be noLed LhaL for
example a parllamenLarlan lnduced by Lhe prospecL of flnanclal galn Lo voLe ln one way or anoLher ln
performlng hls or her law maklng funcLlons ls sub[ecL Lo sancLlon ln a number of ways LLhlcs rules exlsL
boLh ln sLaLuLory law and ln Lhe lnLernal procedural rules governlng each hose of arllamenL

arllamenL's lawmaklng procedure (blll Lo law) arllamenL ls free Lo deLermlne lLs own procedure and
pass laws as lL pleases wlLhln lLs consLlLuLlonal zone of [urlsdlcLlon so whaL rules does lL follow? Malnly
governed by rules of procedure of each chamber of arllamenL eg SLandlng Crders of Lhe Pouse of
Commons 1here are 2 Lypes of bllls publlc (cenLred on publlc pollcy) and prlvaLe (relaLes Lo maLLers of
a parLlcular lnLeresL/beneflL Lo a person/persons) 1he leglslaLlve process for each ls a blL dlfferenL

(1) ubllc bllls Coes Lhrough 9 sLages Lhe second readlng belng Lhe mosL lmporLanL sLage (lL ls Lhen
LhaL Lhe prlnclple and ob[ecL of Lhe blll are debaLed/accepLed/re[ecLed Lhree Lypes of amendmenLs may
be proposed aL Lhls sLage) A blll becomes law when lL recelves 8oyal AssenL lor 8oyal AssenL Lo be
glven Lhe blll has Lo be passed ln Lhe same form by boLh Pouses (le Lhe SenaLe and Pouse of
Commons)

(2) rlvaLe bllls A blll deslgned Lo exempL an lndlvldual or group of lndlvlduals from Lhe appllcaLlon of
Lhe law ls a prlvaLe blll rlvaLe bllls are sub[ecL Lo speclal rules ln boLh Pouses of arllamenL however
mosL prlvaLe bllls orlglnaLe ln Lhe SenaLe where Lhe fees and charges lmposed on Lhe promoLer are less
1hey are lnLroduced by means of a peLlLlon slgned by Lhe lnLeresLed parLles and presenLed ln Lhe Pouse
by a Member who has agreed Lo sponsor lL

1he LxecuLlve 8ranch (ChapLer 3 of Cralk) 8ackground 1he execuLlve branch refers Lo lnsLlLuLlons ln
governmenL LhaL are responslble for lmplemenLlng and enforclng laws wheLher Lhose laws creaLed by
boLh Lhe leglslaLure or [udlclary noLwlLhsLandlng Lhe absence of a rlgld separaLlon of powers docLrlne
ln Canada lL ls sLlll useful Lo speak abouL a dlsLlncL execuLlve branch of governmenL A clear seL of legal
prlnclples governlng Lhe boundarles of execuLlve powers and manner by whlch execuLlve powers are Lo
be exerclsed has been developed (namely admlnlsLraLlve law) AL Lhe hearL of admlnlsLraLlve law ls a
requlremenL LhaL governmenL offlclals exerclse Lhelr powers ln furLherance of publlc noL prlvaLe
lnLeresLs A slmllar expecLaLlon underlles Lhe exerclse of leglslaLlve powers buL ln Lhe case of leglslaLors
publlc preferences are made know and Lhe creaLlon of publlc pollcy ls leglLlmlzed Lhrough democraLlc
processes AdmlnlsLraLlve acLors however are generally noL elecLed ln cases where admlnlsLraLlve
offlclals exerclse narrow powers LhaL are carefully deflned Lhrough leglslaLlon Lhe democraLlc leglLlmacy
of admlnlsLraLlve declslons ls derlved from Lhe close relaLlonshlp beLween admln offlclals and Lhe
leglslaLure

1o a large degree Lhe legal rules LhaL have developed ln admln law have arlsen so as Lo consLraln Lhe
exerclse of admlnlsLraLlve dlscreLlon ln ways LhaL respecL Lhe lnLenLlons of Lhe leglslaLlve branch and
promoLe ouLcomes LhaL Lake lnLo accounL Lhe publlc lnLeresL

1he rlse of Lhe admlnlsLraLlve sLaLe ln Canada CrowLh of gov leads Lo ad hoc growLh of execuLlve
branch (noL planned) Cne of Lhe lmpllcaLlons of Lhls LransformaLlon s a more aLLenuaLed llnk beLween
declslon makers and elecLed offlclals

1he execuLlve branch deflned a 1he Crown 1he enLlre auLhorlLy of Lhe execuLlve branch ls vesLed ln
Lhe monarchy 1hus Lhe Crown ls Lhe formal legal enLlLy of Lhe governmenL and Lhe Crown ls Lhe bearer
of boLh legal rlghLs and obllgaLlons 1hls ls enLrenched ln s 9 of Lhe ConsLlLuLlon AcL 1867 ldenLlflcaLlon
of Lhe governmenL wlLh Lhe Crown speaks only Lo Lhe formal legal sLaLus of Lhe execuLlve 1he governor
general ls Lo exerclse all powers and auLhorlLles lawfully belonglng Lo Lhe monarch ln respecL of Canada
8uL ln a sysLem of responslble governmenL Lhe Crown's represenLaLlve ls noL as poLenL as Lhese
provlslons lmply 8emember Lhe Cueen appolnLs Lhe governor general and lleuLenanL governors Lo acL
as her represenLaLlves alLhough by consLlLuLlonal convenLlon Lhese appolnLmenLs are now made on Lhe
advlce of Lhe M who Lhe Cueen musL follow ln Lurn Lhe governor general and lleuLenanL governors
for each provlnce are bound by consLlLuLlonal convenLlon Lo exerclse Lhelr powers wlLh Lhe advlce of Lhe
CablneL of Lhelr respecLlve governmenL

b 1he rlme MlnlsLer and Lhe CablneL MlnlsLers and Lhe prlme mlnlsLer LogeLher comprlse Lhe mlnlsLry
(whlch ls used lnLerchangeably wlLh Lhe word cablneL) lL ls Lhe prlme mlnlsLer who presldes over Lhe
CablneL 1he CablneL ls ln mosL maLLers Lhe supreme execuLlve auLhorlLy lL ls Lhe CablneL LhaL
deLermlnes Lhe leglslaLlve agenda of Lhe governmenL ln arllamenL and lL ls Lhe CablneL and lLs mlnlsLers
LhaL are responslble for Lhe admlnlsLraLlon of Lhe lndlvldual deparLmenLs of Lhe governmenL 1he
separaLlon of Lhe execuLlve branch from Lhe leglslaLlve branch ls noL absoluLe 1he consLlLuLlonal
convenLlon of responslble governmenL" lles aL Lhe foundaLlon of Canadlan governance under a sysLem
of responslble governmenL Lhe mlnlsLry ls accounLable Lo Lhe leglslaLlve branch boLh collecLlvely and
lndlvldually CollecLlve responslblllLy requlres LhaL Lhe mlnlsLry malnLaln Lhe confldence of Lhe
arllamenL lndlvldual mlnlsLerlal responslblllLy requlres LhaL each mlnlsLer be answerable ln arllamenL
for Lhe acLlvlLles of hls or her deparLmenL ln addlLlon Lo CablneL responslblllLles CablneL mlnlsLers have
admlnlsLraLlve responslblllLy for deparLmenLs under Lhelr charge

c 1he ubllc Servlce 1he employees of mlnlsLrles of Lhe governmenL ofLen referred Lo as clvll servanLs
are also parL of execuLlve 1hey are dlsLlncL from mlnlsLers however ln LhaL Lhey are pollLlcally neuLral
Clvll servanLs musL be loyal Lo Lhe governmenL Lhey represenL (lraser v Canada)

d lndependenL AdmlnlsLraLlve Agencles As a maLLer of express consLlLuLlonal recognlLlon Lhe formal
execuLlve bodles are llmlLed Lo Lhe governor general and lleuLenanL governors Lhe federal and
provlnclal CablneLs and Lhe sysLem of governmenLal deparLmenLs and mlnlsLrles LhaL are overseen by
lndlvldual mlnlsLers Powever execuLlve funcLlons are also carrled ouL by a varleLy of bodles LhaL have a
measure of lndependence from Lhe governmenL for a number of reasons (eg Lhe leglslaLure may
deLermlne LhaL cerLaln declslons are besL made on a prlnclpled basls and Lherefore should be lnsulaLed
from conslderaLlons of pollLlcal expedlency also parLlcular klnd of experLlse mlghL be needed)
lndependenL admln bodles appear ln a broad range of forms dependlng on Lhelr funcLlon An
admlnlsLraLlve body ls Lhe producL of Lhe leglslaLlve lnsLrumenL LhaL creaLes lL As a consLlLuLlonal
maLLer ad[udlcaLlve admln bodles do noL have Lo be lndependenL alLhough Lhere may be clrcumsLances
whlch requlre Lhelr lndependence Ccean orL PoLel case draws Lhe dlsLlncLlon beLween lndependence
requlred by courLs and LhaL requlred by admln bodles LhaL are ad[udlcaLlve lL ls arllamenL/leglslaLures
LhaL deLermlnes by way of sLaLuLe Lhe lndependence requlred by admln bodles

e Crown corporaLlons 1hese are essenLlally admlnlsLraLlve bodles LhaL have a legal personallLy
separaLe from Lhe governmenL 1he purpose of creaLlng Crown corporaLlons ls LhaL Lhey may be useful
where Lhere ls a sLrong commerclal aspecL Lo Lhe governmenLal servlce whlch may requlre declslons Lo
be made free from pollLlcal lnfluences LhaL may unduly lnLerfere wlLh Lhe commerclal ob[ecLlves
AddlLlonally Lhe commerclal naLure of some acLlvlLles may be lllsulLed Lo governmenL deparLmenLal
sLrucLures

f MunlclpallLles MunlclpallLles whlch are creaLed under provlnclal leglslaLlon dellver a wlde range of
publlc servlces such as Lhe provlslon of road sewer and waLer servlces unllke oLher forms of
lndependenL admlnlsLraLlve bodles munlclpallLles are governed by elecLed offlclals and Lhey exerclse
broad plenary powers

e LnforcemenL bodles ollce and rosecuLors 1he execuLlve branch of governmenL ln addlLlon Lo
belng responslble for Lhe lmplemenLaLlon of governmenL pollcy ls requlred Lo enforce Lhose pollcles
LhaL have Lhe force of law 1he enforcemenL duLles fall prlmarlly on Lhe pollce and Lo prosecuLors
1here ls a Lenslon b/w accounLablllLy and lndependence ln Lhe conLexL of enforcemenL (le free from
pollLlcal overslghL yeL Lhey have Lo be held accounLable)

Sources of execuLlve power All execuLlve power flows from Lhe royal prerogaLlve and sLaLuLory
delegaLlon

rerogaLlve powers rerogaLlve powers are Lhose exerclsable by Lhe Crown LhaL do noL arlse from a
sLaLuLory granL of power Lo Lhe Crown 1hese powers can be overrldden by sLaLuLe 1here has been
debaLe over who can exerclse Lhese powers and when Lhey may be sub[ecL Lo [udlclal overslghL 8lack v
ChreLlen says LhaL such powers are sub[ecL Lo [udlclal overslghL ln cerLaln clrcumsLances alLhough ln
LhaL case Lhe lssue was non [usLlclable

SLaLuLory powers 1he ma[orlLy of execuLlve powers orlglnaLe from a delegaLlon of auLhorlLy by Lhe
leglslaLure by sLaLuLe uelegaLlon power of LeglslaLures ls wlde (parllamenLary soverelgnLy) buL Lhe
powers delegaLed musL conform Lo Lhe ConsLlLuLlon and anoLher rule whlch says LhaL no delegaLe can
be auLhorlzed Lo exerclse absoluLe dlscreLlon (8onceralll v uuplesls) LeglslaLures can delegaLe power Lo
execuLlve buL cannoL abdlcaLe Lhelr power (see 8e Cray re delegaLlon of war Llme powers) arllamenL
cannoL delegaLe Lo provlnclal leglslaLures and vlce versa (le lnLer delegaLlon) (Lhe basls of Lhls prlnclple
ls LhaL an lnLerdelegaLlon would upseL Lhe consLlLuLlonal dlvlslon of powers conLalned ln ss 91 and 92 of
Lhe ConsLlLuLlon AcL 1867) alLhough Lhere can be lndlrecL lnLerdelegaLlon (namely where Lhe lnLer
delegaLlon was Lo an admlnlsLraLlve body) (Ll oLaLo MarkeLlng 8oard v Wlllls)

naLure and funcLlon of delegaLed powers uelegaLed auLhorlLy has been granLed ln vlrLually every area
of publlc pollcy uesplLe LhaL Lhere ls now a deemphasls on funcLlonal dlsLlncLlons ln order Lo
deLermlne admlnlsLraLlve acLors' duLles/funcLlons/responslblllLles lL helps Lo revlew Lhe ma[or Lypes of
declslons commonly made by admln declslon makers

(1) 8ule maklng (le delegaLed leglslaLlon) MosL pervaslve form of admln rule maklng ls Lhe regulaLlon
maklng power LhaL ls delegaLed Lo Lhe CablneL Lhrough Lhe governor ln councll buL admln rule maklng
lsn'L resLrlcLed Lo Lhls form 1he legal effecL of delegaLed leglslaLlon ls deLermlned by Lhe parenL
leglslaLlon 8eneflLs of delegaLed forms of leglslaLlon relaLe malnly Lo Lhe relaLlve flexlblllLy of
regulaLlons 1he sLaLuLory process ls much more cumbersome and Llme consumlng Lhan Lhe process for
enacLlng regulaLlons Anu regulaLlons are sulLed where rules requlre read[usLmenL (lmposslble for
leglslaLors Lo know ln advance Lhe range of clrcumsLances LhaL wlll requlre speclallzed rules) Anu
experLlse Anu lL ls lmposslble for leglslaLors Lo know ln advance Lhe range of clrcumsLances LhaL wlll
requlre speclallzed rules 1here are concerns as well Lhough (le lack of same scruLlny leglslaLlon ls
enacLed wlLh) See Lhe CovernmenL of Canada Culde Lo Maklng lederal AcLs and 8egulaLlons" p 273
of Lhe book for more

(2) ulspuLe resoluLlon lL ls common for admlnlsLraLlve agencles Lo be creaLed ln order Lo hear and
declde speclflc klnds of dlspuLes 1here are some advanLages (publlc parLlclpaLlon Llme/expense don'L
have Lo follow rlgld laws all Lhe Llme and can rely heavlly on pollcy eLc)

(3) 8eneflL or obllgaLlon deLermlnaLlon 1he mosL prevalenL group of admlnlsLraLlve declslon makers are
Lhose empowered Lo deLermlne wheLher a person wlll be granLed a parLlcular publlc beneflL (eg a
welfare enLlLlemenL) Also obllgaLlon deLermlnaLlons may ralse dlfferenL lssues Lhese declslons usually
lnlLlaLed by Lhe lmposlng agency leavlng an affecLed person Lo Lake afflrmaLlve sLeps Lo proLecL lnLeresL
1he deslre for falrness ls ofLen ln confllcL wlLh Lhe need for admlnlsLraLlve efflclency ln Lhese slLuaLlons

(4) LnforcemenL declslons Lg by pollce/prosecuLors and some admlnlsLraLlve offlclals whose enabllng
sLaLuLes confers lnvesLlgaLory powers

nC1L Lach of Lhese funcLlons may overlap as shown by Lhe Canadlan Puman 8lghLs Commlsslon
example

LlmlLs on Lhe exerclse of delegaLed auLhorlLy Whlle Lhe consLralnLs on Lhe ablllLy of Lhe leglslaLlve
branch Lo delegaLe auLhorlLy are mlnlmal once auLhorlLy ls delegaLed Lhe law lmposes a rlgorous seL of
llmlLaLlons on Lhe exerclse of power 1he overarchlng prlnclple ls LhaL delegaLed auLhorlLy musL be
exerclsed wlLhln Lhe boundarles of Lhe sLaLuLory granL of power 1he deLermlnaLlon of Lhe legallLy of
Lhe exerclse of admlnlsLraLlve auLhorlLy ls Lhe funcLlon of Lhe courLs 1he supervlsory role of Lhe courLs
ralses complex lssues concernlng Lhe condlLlons under whlch Lhe [udlclal branch should lnLerfere wlLh
declslons Laken by Lhe execuLlve branch (see chapLer 8)

(1) ConLrolllng !urlsdlcLlon SubsLanLlve ulLra vlres Can only exerclse Lhe powers granLed by Lhe
enabllng sLaLuLe CannoL subdelegaLe duLles (wlLh some excepLlons le maLLers LhaL are merely
admlnlsLraLlve may be subdelegaLed)

(2) ConLrolllng procedures 1he duLy Lo be falr uuLy Lo be falr refers Lo Lhe procedures adopLed by Lhe
declslon maker Admln declslon makers are generally requlred by common law Lo acL falrly Loward
Lhose persons affecLed by Lhelr declslons 1he duLy Lo be falr ls no longer conflned Lo [udlclal/quasl
[udlclal declslons See knlghL v lndlan Pead School and 8aker

(3) ConLrolllng dlscreLlon bad falLh lmproper purposes and lrrelevanL conslderaLlons 1here are
beneflLs of admln declslon makers havlng broad dlscreLlon Powever Lhere are also concerns lf admln
declslon maker exerclses dlscreLlon ln (1) bad falLh or (2) Lakes lnLo accounL lrrelevanL conslderaLlons or
(3) lgnores mandaLory conslderaLlons Lhen Lhelr declslon may be overLurned 1hese are [urlsdlcLlonal
errors 1he sLandard of revlew of Lhese declslons ls lmporLanL an lmporLanL conslderaLlon ln
deLermlnlng wheLher an admlnlsLraLlve declslon maker has lmproperly exerclsed hls or her dlscreLlon
wlll be Lhe amounL of deference a revlewlng courL glves an admln declslon See 8aker excerpL (SCC
consldered Lhe proper approach Lo Lhe [udlclal revlew of dlscreLlonary declslons and Lhe requlremenLs
of admlnlsLraLlve declslon makers who exerclse dlscreLlonary powers)

CourLs and Lhe !udlclary (ChapLer 6 of Cralk) CourL sysLem ConsLlLuLlonal framework SLarLlng polnL ln
undersLandlng Lhe Canadlan courL sysLem ls Lhe ConsLlLuLlon AcL 1867 led governmenL creaLed Lhe
Supreme CourL of Canada Lhe lederal CourL/lederal Appeal CourL and Lhe 1ax CourL as auLhorlzed by
Lhe ConsLlLuLlon rovlnces creaLe s 96 superlor courLs led governmenL appolnLs and pays Lhe salarles
of provlnclal superlor courL [udges rovlnces appolnL and pay Lhe salarles of provlnclal courL [udges
rovlnces cannoL pass leglslaLlon creaLlng a Lrlbunal appolnL members and Lhen confer on Lhe Lrlbunal
Lhe [urlsdlcLlon of superlor courLs 8e 8esldenLlal 1enancles AcL developed a 3 parL LesL ln order Lo
deLermlne wheLher creaLlng such a Lrlbunal would erode Lhe s 96 power 1hls ls because superlor courLs
are a fundamenLal lnsLlLuLlon proLecLed by our ConsLlLuLlon Lhrough Lhe lnLerpreLaLlon of s 96 1he
provlnces or federal arllamenL cannoL enacL leglslaLlon Lo encroach on Lhelr core [urlsdlcLlon

Cvervlew of Lhe courL sysLem llrsL level ls Lhe provlnclal/LerrlLorlal courLs whlch every
provlnce/LerrlLory has excepL nunavuL (Lhere Lhere ls no LerrlLorlal courLmaLLers LhaL would normally
be heard aL LhaL level are heard by Lhe nunavuL CourL of !usLlce whlch ls a superlor courL) Second level
ls provlnclal/LerrlLorlal superlor courLs (s 96 courLs) (excepL for nunavuL where Lhe nunavuL CourL of
!usLlce deals wlLh boLh LerrlLorlal and superlor courL maLLers) 1hlrd level ls courLs of appeal 1he
hlghesL level ls Lhe supreme courL of Canada noLe also Lhe federal courLs speclallzed federal courLs
(eg Lhe Lax courL of Canada and mlllLary courLs)

!udlclal appolnLmenLs Are Lhe rlghL people appolnLed as [udges? 1here has been conLroversy
surroundlng [udlclal appolnLmenL especlally aL Lhe federal level (le appolnLmenL of superlor courL
[udges) ln Canada noLe LhaL [udges are selecLed by Lhe execuLlve branch ofLen followlng a shorLllsLlng
procedure lnvolvlng an advlsory commlLLee

rovlnclal appolnLmenLs 8aslc model ls bullL on an advlsory commlLLee made up of a mlxLure of
members from Lhe legal communlLy and laypersons whlch makes recommendaLlons Lo Lhe provlnclal
aLLorney general

lederal (nonSupreme CourL) appolnLmenLs) s 96 courLs lederal courL and Lax courL are appolnLed
by Lhe governor ln councll (le Lhe CablneL) (and Lhe process ls overseen by Lhe Cfflce of Lhe
Commlssloner for lederal !udlclal Affalrs) and Lhe Supreme CourL of Canada [usLlces are slmply
appolnLed by Lhe governor ln councll

a Cvervlew 1he offlce of Lhe Commlssloner for lederal !udlclal Affalrs oversees Lhe federal [udlclal
appolnLmenL process for s 96 courLs lndependenL [udlclal advlsory commlLLees consLlLuLe Lhe hearL of
Lhe appolnLmenLs process lederal appolnLmenLs are made by Lhe governor general acLlng on Lhe
advlce of Lhe federal CablneL A recommendaLlon ls made Lo CablneL by Lhe MlnlsLer of !usLlce LhaL
recommendaLlon ls made from amongsL Lhe names whlch have been prevlously reporLed by Lhe
commlLLees Lo Lhe MlnlsLer 1he recommendaLlon for appolnLmenL as a [udge ls made Lo CablneL by Lhe
mlnlsLer of [usLlce who has been advlsed by Lhe [udlclal advlsory commlLLee

b CrlLlclsms CuesLlons have remalned abouL pollLlcal lnfluence on Lhe selecLlon process Concern for
paLronage appolnLmenLs (le allegaLlons have been made LhaL appolnLmenLs are LalnLed by pollLlcal
conslderaLlons and LhaL candldaLes who have conLrlbuLed Lo pollLlcal parLles are appolnLed) 1oo much
dlscreLlon ln Lhe hands of Lhe gov eg mlnlsLer has power Lo appolnL from Lhe recommend" and
hlghly recommend llsL" (blg llsLs room for abuse of dlscreLlon) (Lhe baslc concern") no Lransparency
or accounLablllLy Calls for change have been made (one suggesLlon ls Lo have lnLervlews)

Supreme CourL appolnLmenLs none of Lhe appolnLmenL processes descrlbed above apply Lo Lhe SCC
(SCC [udges normally appolnLed by governor ln councll) ?eL ln Lhe posL CharLer era Lhe courL's
declslons wlll have a greaL effecL on publlc pollcy lL ls argued LhaL Lhe SCC ls leglslaLlng" As a resulL
calls for change Lo Lhe federal appolnLmenL process have been especlally perslsLenL ln relaLlon Lo
appolnLmenLs Lo Lhe SCC

!udlclal lndependence !udlclal lnd ls Lhe noLlon LhaL [udges are aL arm's lengLh from Lhe oLher
branches of governmenL !udlclal lnd conslsLs essenLlally ln Lhe freedom Lo render declslons based
solely on Lhe requlremenLs of Lhe law and [usLlce lL requlres LhaL Lhe [udlclary be lefL free Lo acL w/ouL
lmproper lnLerference from any oLher enLlLy le LhaL Lhe execuLlve and Lhe leglslaLlve branches don'L
lmplnge on Lhe essenLlal auLhorlLy and funcLlon of Lhe courL

Sources and scope !l ls rlchly a consLlLuLlonal concepL eg secLlons 96 Lo 100 of Lhe ConsLlLuLlonal
AcL 1867 provlde for Lhe appolnLmenL securlLy of Lenure and remuneraLlon of federally appolnLed
[udges noLe Lhese provlslons only apply Lo superlor courLs CLher Lhan Lhose provlslons s 11(d)
lmposes a requlremenL for [udlclal lndependence lL's source ls also ln unwrlLLen consLlLuLlonal
prlnclples (see 8eference re 8umuneraLlon of !udges of Lhe rovlnclal CourL of Ll) !udlclal
lndependence as an unwrlLLen consLlLuLlonal prlnclple exLends Lo ALL courLs noL [usL superlor courLs
(see 8eference re 8umuneraLlon of !udges of Lhe rovlnclal CourL of Ll)

Assesslng lndependence Pow ls lndependence measured? 1he LesL Lo assess wheLher Lhere ls
[udlclal lndependence ls an ob[ecLlve reasonable persons LesL 8equlres acLual lndependence and a
reasonable percepLlon of lndependence on Lhe parL of a reasonable and well lnformed person
lndependence lncludes boLh a requlremenL of acLual lndependence and also condlLlons sufflclenL Lo
glve rlse Lo a reasonable percepLlon of lndependence on Lhe parL of a reasonable and welllnformed
person

Core characLerlsLlcs 1here are 3 core characLerlsLlcs and 2 dlmenslons (le lndlvldual and lnsLlLuLlonal)

(1) SecurlLy of Lenure 1hls has boLh lnsLlLuLlonal and lndependenL lndlvldual securlLy of Lenure means
LhaL [udges may noL be dlsmlssed unLll Lhe age of reLlremenL excepL breaches of good behavlour"
whlch have been lnLerpreLed Lo lnclude mlsconducL or dlsablllLy lnsLlLuLlonal securlLy of Lenure means
LhaL before a [udge may be removed for cause Lhere musL be a [udlclal lnqulry Lo esLabllsh LhaL such
cause exlsLs aL whlch Lhe [udge affecLed musL be afforded Lhe opporLunlLy Lo be heard 1hus a [udge
can only be removed from offlce for a reason relaLlng Lo hls or her capaclLy Lo perform hls or her [udlclal
duLles Lhe !udges AcL esLabllshes Lhe Canadlan !udlclal Councll as Lhe body responslble for
lnvesLlgaLlng complalnLs abouL Lhe conducL of federally appolnLed [udges lf Lhe Councll concludes LhaL
removal of a [udge ls warranLed lL makes a reporL Lo Lhe mlnlsLer of [usLlce who may lnLroduce a
moLlon before arllamenL 1he acLual auLhorlLy Lo recommend removal of a [udge ls found ln s 69(3) of
Lhe !udges AcL

(2) llnanclal securlLy llnanclal securlLy relaLes Lo Lhe pay [udges recelve for performlng Lhelr [ob and
proLecLs agalnsL an unscrupulous governmenL LhaL could uLlllze lLs auLhorlLy Lo seL [udges salarles as a
vehlcle Lo lnfluence Lhe course and ouLcome of ad[udlcaLlon lL has boLh an lndlvldual and lnsLlLuLlonal
dlmenslon lnsLlLuLlonal flnanclal securlLy has 3 requlremenLs (1) changes Lo remuneraLlon requlre
prlor recourse Lo a speclal process governed by an lndependenL effecLlve and ob[ecLlve body who
makes a recommendaLlon of salary (2) noL permlsslble for [udlclary Lo engage ln negoLlaLlons over
remuneraLlon wlLh Lhe execuLlve or represenLaLlves of Lhe leglslaLure (3) 8educLlons Lo [udlclal
remuneraLlon cannoL Lake Lhose salarles below a baslc mlnlmum level of remuneraLlon LhaL ls requlred
for Lhe offlce of a [udge (see 8eference re 8umuneraLlon of !udges of Lhe rovlnclal CourL of Ll)

(3) AdmlnlsLraLlve lndependence Admln lndependence requlres LhaL courLs Lhemselves have conLrol
over Lhe admlnlsLraLlve declslons LhaL bear dlrecLly on Lhe exerclse of Lhe [udlclal funcLlon See Canada
v 1oblass (where SCC concluded LhaL aL leasL Lhe appearance of lndependence was Lransgressed)

ConsLralnLs on LeglslaLlve and AdmlnlsLraLlve AcLlon (ChapLer 8 of Cralk) 1hls parL explores Lhe role
LhaL Lhe [udlclary plays ln consLralnlng leglslaLlve and admlnlsLraLlve/execuLlve acLlon

1he role of consLlLuLlonal [udlclal revlew ln a democraLlc socleLy !usLlflcaLlon for consLlLuLlonal [udlclal
revlew ConsLlLuLlon deslgned by Lhe wlll of Lhe people made up of prlnclples LhaL are so fundamenLal
and esLabllshed and so Lhe leglslaLlve acLs musL be conslsLenL wlLh lL And lL's Lhe provlnce of Lhe
[udlclary Lo say whaL Lhe law ls (Lhose who apply rules Lo cases musL lnLerpreL LhaL rule) and even Lhe
ConsLlLuLlon requlres lnLerpreLaLlon

LlmlLaLlons of [udlclal revlew lssue of [usLlclablllLy Lhe ldea of a sense of lack of flLness of submlLLlng
quesLlons Lo a [udlclal or quasl [udlclal deLermlnaLlon (see CperaLlon ulsmanLle v 1he Cueen) lssue of
enforcemenL alLhough Lhe ConsLlLuLlon ls supreme and Lhe [udlclary ls relled on Lo lnLerpreL and
lnvalldaLe leglslaLlon LhaL ls lnconslsLenL wlLh lL Lhe pracLlcal reallLy ls LhaL courLs normally have Lo rely
on Lhe execuLlve and leglslaLlve branches of governmenL for Lhe enforcemenL of Lhelr declslons ln
uouceL 8oudreau v nS Lhe lssue of courL usurplng execuLlve funcLlon arose (where Lhe courL ordered
Lhe governmenL of nova ScoLla Lo use lLs besL efforLs Lo bulld a lrench Language school Lo comply wlLh
lLs duLles under Lhe CharLer (mlnorlLy language rlghLs) erlodlc reporLs on lLs progress was also ordered
Pow close ls Lhls Lo Lhe [udlclary usurplng Lhe role of Lhe execuLlve?

A relaLed lssue ls how courLs address Lhe someLlmes sweeplng dlsregard by Lhe leglslaLure of
consLlLuLlonal rules See 8eference re Language 8lghLs under s 23 of ManlLoba AcL valldlLy of s 23 was
sLruck down 4 Llmes wlLhouL leglslaLlve response lL was Lhe CourL's duLy Lo ensure LhaL Lhe language
rlghLs ln Lhe consLlLuLlon are proLecLed 1o conform wlLh rule of law CourL declded on a drasLlc remedy
namely allowlng Lhe lnvalld acLs Lo remaln law unLll sLaLuLes were LranslaLed

lssue of leglLlmacy A more promlnenL concern ls LhaL [udges have Lo lnLerpreL vague sLaLemenLs ln Lhe
ConsLlLuLlon when [udges glve concreLe shape Lo vague ldeas seL ouL ln Lhe CharLer for example and
Lhen lnvalldaLe laws LhaL do noL conform Lo Lhelr lnLerpreLaLlon of Lhese requlremenLs Lhe rule of law
may subLly be Lransformed lnLo Lhe rule of unelecLed [udges 1wo maln complalnLs abouL [udlclal revlew
aspecL

(1) under Lhe banner of consLlLuLlonal supremacy courLs have usurped power LhaL ls properly Lhe
domaln of arllamenL and Lhe provlnclal leglslaLures ArgumenL ls LhaL courLs have expanded Lhelr
proper role of lnLerpreLlng Lhe ConsLlLuLlon and have Lhereby unduly shrunk Lhe zone of parllamenL
supremacy

Cn one slde Lhe concern ls LhaL someLlmes [udlclal revlew ls llleglLlmaLe because lL ls anLl
democracLlc ln LhaL unelecLed offlclals ([udges) are overrullng elecLed represenLaLlves (leglslaLors)
Also Lhey read ln concepLs Lo laws whlch amounLs Lo changlng Lhe law ln lLself (eg readlng ln [udlclal
lndependence prlnclple ln Lhe ConsLlLuLlon by reference Lo Lhe preamble ln 8eference re 8umeneraLlon
of !udges of Ll was crlLlclzed ln a dlssenLlng oplnlon of La loresL !) 1he oLher slde ls LhaL lL was Lhe
wlll of Lhe people LhaL enacLed Lhe ConsLlLuLlon (lncludlng Lhe CharLer) and admlnlsLraLlve Lrlbunals
And lL ls Lhe CourL's [ob Lo oversee adherence Lo Lhese laws !udlclal revlew ls noL anLldemocraLlc
Lherefore lurLher Lhere ls a loL of bullL ln deference Lo Lhe leglslaLure (see s 1 s 33) Also noLe Lhe
dlalogue model whlch some say occurs beLween Lhe [udlclary and leglslaLure (whlch preserves a proper
separaLlon of power) lurLher Lhere ls no clear llne b/w applylng lnLerpreLlng and maklng Lhe law as
crlLlcs appear Lo Lhlnk

(2) Concern abouL Lhe subsLanLlve approach courLs have Laken Lo parLlcular rlghLs rlghLs LhaL may be
unpopular elemenLs of socleLy

A core quesLlon lles aL Lhe hearL of boLh of Lhese complalnLs ln renderlng consLlLuLlonal declslons how
much deference should courLs show elecLed offlclals?

ulfferenL sorLs of [udlclal revlew (speclflcally consLlLuLlonal llLlgaLlon) of leglslaLlve acLlon 1he value of
whaL follows ls Lo show varlous Lypes of approaches courLs use Lo address dlfferenL Lypes of
consLlLuLlonal challenges Lo leglslaLlon

unwrlLLen ConsLlLuLlonal prlnclples Canadlan courLs have been wllllng Lo a llmlLed exLenL Lo recognlze
underlylng consLlLuLlonal prlnclples LhaL can be glven full legal effecL (eg 8eference re Secesslon of
Cuebec 8eference re 8umeraLlon of rovlnclal CourL !udges)

1he ConsLlLuLlon AcL 1867 ln Lerms of Lhelr poLenLlal Lo generaLe llLlgaLlon Lhe mosL lmporLanL
feaLures of Lhe ConsLlLuLlon AcL 1867 are Lhe provlslons of ss 91 93 LhaL dlsLrlbuLe leglslaLlve power
beLween Lhe federal and provlnclal levels of governmenL

1he Canadlan CharLer of 8lghLs and lreedoms 1he oLher Lype of consLlLuLlonal llLlgaLlon arlses from
Lhe CharLer 1wo aspecLs (1) rocess of deflnlng Lhe subsLanLlve rlghL proLecLed by Lhe relevanL
provlslon of Lhe CharLer (2) 8elaLlonshlp beLween Lhe subsLanLlve rlghLs and Lhe [usLlflcaLlon of llmlLs on
Lhose rlghLs under s 1

!udlclal revlew of admlnlsLraLlve acLlon

!udlclal revlew of execuLlve or admlnlsLraLlve acLlon ralses somewhaL dlfferenL quesLlons abouL
lnsLlLuLlonal relaLlonshlps Lhan does [udlclal revlew of leglslaLlve acLlon 1here ls some overlap aL leasL
Lo Lhe exLenL LhaL [udges wlll normally wanL Lo respecL Lhe cholce of democraLlcally elecLed leglslaLures
Lo allocaLe declslonmaklng auLhorlLy Lo lnsLlLuLlons oLher Lhan courLs Cn Lhe oLher hand Lhe [udlclal
lnvalldaLlon of parLlcular admlnlsLraLlve acLs on nonconsLlLuLlonal grounds ofLen does noL preclude Lhe
declslon maker from repeaLlng hls or her acLlons Lhls Llme ln compllance w/ Lhe sLandards seL ouL ln Lhe
sLaLuLe delegaLlng power or common law procedural falrness As Canadlan courLs have become more
sophlsLlcaLed ln Lhelr approach Lo [udlclal revlew Lhey have become more wllllng Lo Lake lnLo accounL a
number of oLher facLors ln deLermlnlng Lhe naLure of Lhelr lnsLlLuLlonal relaLlonshlp wlLh admlnlsLraLlve
declslon makers 1hese facLors have become parL of Lhe sLandard of revlew analysls LhaL has become
Lhe flrsL sLep a courL musL Lake when revlewlng an admlnlsLraLlve declslon 1he baslc quesLlon
addressed by Lhe sLandard revlew analysls ls how deferenLlal should Lhe courLs be Lo execuLlve branch
lnLerpreLaLlons of Lhe mandaLe accorded Lo Lhem by sLaLuLes?

3 8elaLlonshlp of Aborlglnal eoples Lo Lhe Canadlan SLaLe

Cvervlew Aborlglnal rlghLs and LlLle Aborlglnal SelfCovernmenL asplraLlons 1he modern LreaLy
maklng process

ArLlcles Mary C Purley 1he Crown's flduclary relaLlonshlp w/ Aborlglnal peoples" Aborlglnal peoples
have always had a unlque legal and consLlLuLlonal poslLlon (l) llrsL Lhere was Lhe 8oyal roclamaLlon of
1763 whlch reserved Lo Lhe Crown Lhe excluslve rlghL Lo negoLlaLe cesslons of Aborlglnal LlLle (ll) 1hen
came subsecLlon 91(24) of Lhe ConsLlLuLlon AcL 1867 granLed Lhe federal arllamenL leglslaLlve
auLhorlLy over lndlans and Lands 8eserved for Lhe lndlans" (lll) llnally secLlon 33 of Lhe ConsLlLuLlon
AcL 1982 recognlzes and afflrms exlsLlng aborlglnal and LreaLy rlghLs" of Canada's Aborlglnal peoples
deflned as lncludlng Lhe lndlan lnulL and MeLls peoples

!udlclal lnLerpreLaLlon A flduclary relaLlonshlp" ls one ln whlch someone ln a poslLlon of LrusL has
rlghLs and powers whlch he ls bound Lo exerclse for Lhe beneflL" of anoLher 1he Supreme CourL of
Canada has adapLed Lhese largely prlvaLe law concepLs Lo Lhe conLexL of CrownAborlglnal relaLlons
See Cuerln v 8 for example whlch esLabllshed LhaL Lhe flduclary relaLlonshlp ls rooLed ln Lhe concepL
of Aborlglnal LlLle coupled wlLh Lhe requlremenL ouLllned above LhaL Lhe Aborlglnal lnLeresL ln land
may be allenaLed only vla surrender Lo Lhe Crown Lhls requlremenL whlch places Lhe Crown beLween
Lhe Aborlglnal group and Lhlrd parLles Lo prevenL explolLaLlon glves Lhe Crown dlscreLlon Lo declde Lhe
Aborlglnal lnLeresL and Lransforms lLs obllgaLlon lnLo a flduclary one so as Lo regulaLe Crown conducL
when deallng wlLh Lhe land for Lhe Aborlglnal group ln Lhe unlque CrownAborlglnal relaLlonshlp Lhe
flduclary obllgaLlon owed by Lhe Crown ls sul generls or one of a klnd 1he scope of Lhe relaLlonshlp
was exLended ln 8 v Sparrow whlch was Lhe CourL's flrsL s 33 declslon

Lhe general guldlng prlnclple" for secLlon 33 ls LhaL Lhe CovernmenL has Lhe responslblllLy Lo acL ln
a flduclary capaclLy wlLh respecL Lo aborlglnal peoples 1he relaLlonshlp beLween Lhe CovernmenL and
aborlglnals ls LrusLllke raLher Lhan adversarlal and conLemporary recognlLlon and afflrmaLlon of
aborlglnal rlghLs musL be deflned ln llghL of Lhls hlsLorlc relaLlonshlp" Lhe honour of Lhe Crown ls aL
sLake ln deallngs wlLh aborlglnal peoples(7) 1he speclal LrusL relaLlonshlp and Lhe responslblllLy of Lhe
governmenL vlsvls aborlglnals musL be Lhe flrsL conslderaLlon ln deLermlnlng wheLher Lhe lnfrlnglng
leglslaLlon or acLlon ln quesLlon can be [usLlfled" Lhe [usLlflcaLory sLandard Lo be meL may place a
heavy burden on Lhe Crown" whlle lnqulrles such as wheLher Lhe lnfrlngemenL has been mlnlmal
wheLher falr compensaLlon has been avallable and wheLher Lhe affecLed Aborlglnal group has been
consulLed may also be lncluded ln Lhe [usLlflcaLlon LesL(8) See also 8 v Adams uelgamuukw v 8C eLc
whlch expanded on Lhe duLy 8uL Lhen see Wewaykum lndlan 8and v Canada whlch seL ouL some
llmlLaLlons of Lhe flduclary duLy (eg LhaL Lhe flduclary duLy does noL exlsL aL large) LxLra[udlclal
conslderaLlons 1he federal governmenL ldenLlfles 2 prlnclpal caLegorles of flduclary obllgaLlons for
governmenL managers Lo Lake lnLo accounL CuerlnLype obllgaLlons arlse ln slLuaLlons where Lhe Crown
has a duLy Lo acL ln Lhe lnLeresLs of an Aborlglnal group and has dlscreLlonary power ln Lhe maLLer (for
example ln connecLlon wlLh Lhe surrender of reserve land) SparrowLype obllgaLlons arlse when Lhe
Crown musL respecL consLlLuLlonally proLecLed Aborlglnal or LreaLy rlghLs and [usLlfy lnLerferences wlLh
Lhose rlghLs
CommenLary 1he foregolng overvlew suggesLs LhaL Lhe Crown's flduclary relaLlonshlp wlLh and ensulng
obllgaLlons Loward Aborlglnal peoples have lmpllcaLlons for Lhe developmenL and conducL of
governmenL pollcy ln maLLers LhaL engage Aborlglnal lnLeresLs lmporLanL quesLlons relaLed Lo
lmplemenLaLlon of Lhe CrownAborlglnal flduclary relaLlonshlp remaln 1he appllcaLlon of Supreme
CourL of Canada declslons conflrmlng Lhe flduclary relaLlonshlp has yeL Lo be fully deflned ln a number of
conLexLs for example land clalm and selfgovernmenL negoLlaLlons Slmllarly Lhe sLandard(s) for
governmenL conducL LhaL wlll uphold Lhe honour of Lhe Crown" ln varlous slLuaLlons requlre
clarlflcaLlon

PlghllghLs from Lhe 8eporL of Lhe 8oyal Commlsslon on Aborlglnal eoples" SLage 1 SeparaLe worlds
Aborlglnals lnhablLed Lhe Amerlcas

SLage 2 naLlonLonaLlon relaLlons CauLlous cooperaLlon was Lhe Lheme of Lhls perlod Aborlglnals ln
charge of own affalrs CooperaLlon was formallzed ln Lwo lmporLanL ways (1) LreaLles (2) Lhe 8oyal
roclamaLlon of 1763

(a) 1reaLles 1reaLles were a way for Luropeans and Ab's Lo recognlzlng each oLhers soverelgnLy and
muLual respecL Ab's laLer found ouL LhaL Lhe LreaLles were used dlfferenL Lo whaL Lhey expecLed

(b) 8oyal proclamaLlon 1he 8oyal roclamaLlon of 1763 was a deflnlng documenL ln Lhe relaLlonshlp
beLween Aborlglnal and nonAborlglnal people ln norLh Amerlca 1he proclamaLlon summarlzed Lhe
rules LhaL were Lo govern 8rlLlsh deallngs wlLh Aborlglnal people especlally ln relaLlon Lo Lhe key
quesLlon of land Aborlglnal people were noL Lo be molesLed or dlsLurbed on Lhelr lands
1ransacLlons lnvolvlng Aborlglnal land were Lo be negoLlaLed properly beLween Lhe Crown and
assemblles of lndlans Aborlglnal lands were Lo be acqulred only by falr deallng LreaLy or purchase by
Lhe Crown 1he proclamaLlon porLrays lndlan naLlons as auLonomous pollLlcal enLlLles llvlng under Lhe
proLecLlon of Lhe Crown buL reLalnlng Lhelr own lnLernal pollLlcal auLhorlLy lL walks a flne llne beLween
safeguardlng Lhe rlghLs of Aborlglnal peoples and esLabllshlng a process Lo permlL 8rlLlsh seLLlemenL lL
flnds a balance ln an arrangemenL allowlng Aborlglnal and nonAborlglnal people Lo dlvlde and share
soverelgn rlghLs Lo Lhe lands LhaL are now Canada

SLage 3 8especL glves way Lo domlnaLlon lronlcally Lhe LransformaLlon from respecLful coexlsLence Lo
domlnaLlon by nonAborlglnal laws and lnsLlLuLlons began wlLh Lhe maln lnsLrumenLs of Lhe parLnershlp
Lhe LreaLles and Lhe 8oyal roclamaLlon of 1763 1hen came ConfederaLlon ln 1867 a new parLnershlp
b/w Lngllsh and lrench whlch was negoLlaLed w/ouL Aborlglnal naLlons 1hen came Lhe 8nA AcL young
Canada's new consLlLuLlon whlch made lndlans and Lands reserved for Lhe lndlans" sub[ecL for
governmenL regulaLlon

SLage 4 8enewal and renegoLlaLlon ollcles of domlnaLlon and asslmllaLlon baLLered Aborlglnal
lnsLlLuLlons someLlmes Lo Lhe polnL of collapse overLy lll healLh and soclal dlsorganlzaLlon grew
worse Aborlglnal people sLruggled for survlval as lndlvlduals Lhelr naLlonhood erased from Lhe publlc
mlnd and almosL forgoLLen by Lhemselves 8eslsLance Lo asslmllaLlon grew weak buL lL never dled
away ln Lhe fourLh sLage of Lhe relaLlonshlp lL caughL flre and began Lo grow lnLo a pollLlcal movemenL
Cne sLlmulus was Lhe federal governmenLs WhlLe aper on lndlan pollcy lssued ln 1969 1hey sLudled
Lhelr hlsLory and found evldence conflrmlng LhaL Lhey have rlghLs arlslng from Lhe splrlL and lnLenL of
Lhelr LreaLles and Lhe 8oyal roclamaLlon of 1763 1hey Look hearL from declslons of Canadlan courLs
mosL slnce 1971 afflrmlng Lhelr speclal relaLlonshlp wlLh Lhe Crown and Lhelr unlque lnLeresL ln Lhelr
LradlLlonal lands 1hey seL abouL beglnnlng Lo rebulld Lhelr communlLles and Lhelr naLlons wlLh new
found purpose A dozen years of lnLense pollLlcal sLruggle by Aborlglnal people lncludlng appeals Lo
Lhe Cueen and Lhe 8rlLlsh arllamenL produced an hlsLorlc breakLhrough LxlsLlng Aborlglnal and
LreaLy rlghLs were recognlzed ln Lhe ConsLlLuLlon AcL 1982

1he way forward 1he pollcles of Lhe pasL have falled Lo brlng peace and harmony Lo Lhe relaLlonshlp
beLween Aborlglnal peoples and oLher Canadlans Lqually Lhey have falled Lo brlng conLenLmenL or
prosperlLy Lo Aborlglnal people ln Lhe followlng chapLers we ouLllne a powerful seL of lnLerllnked ldeas
for movlng forward 8uL governmenLs have so far refused Lo recognlze Lhe conLlnulLy of Aborlglnal
naLlons and Lhe need Lo permlL Lhelr decolonlzaLlon aL lasL 8y Lhelr acLlons lf noL Lhelr words
governmenLs conLlnue Lo block Aborlglnal naLlons from assumlng Lhe broad powers of governance LhaL
would permlL Lhem Lo fashlon Lhelr own lnsLlLuLlons and work ouL Lhelr own soluLlons Lo soclal
economlc and pollLlcal problems lL ls Lhls refusal LhaL effecLlvely blocks Lhe way forward 1he new
parLnershlp we envlslon ls much more Lhan a pollLlcal or lnsLlLuLlonal one lL musL be a hearLfelL
commlLmenL among peoples Lo llve LogeLher ln peace harmony and muLual supporL We propose 4
8lnClLLS as Lhe basls for a renewed relaLlonshlp recognlLlon respecL sharlng and responslblllLy We
propose LhaL LreaLles be Lhe mechanlsm for Lurnlng prlnclples lnLo pracLlce

8esLrucLurlng Lhe relaLlonshlp 1o resLore Lhe essence of Lhe early relaLlonshlp beLween Aborlglnal and
seLLler socleLles descrlbed ln ChapLer 1 Lhe elemenLs of parLnershlp musL be recreaLed ln modern form
1he sLarLlng polnL for Lhls LransformaLlon ls recognlLlon of Aborlglnal naLlonhood 8lghL Lo self
governmenL lmporLanL

Self governmenL 1he rlghL ls lnherenL ln Aborlglnal people and Lhelr naLlonhood We hold LhaL
Aborlglnal governmenLs are one of Lhree orders of governmenL ln Canada federal provlnclal/LerrlLorlal
and Aborlglnal 1o have selfgovernmenL Lhey need Lo esLabllsh larger communlLles develop human
resources We propose a new 8oyal roclamaLlon 1he proclamaLlon should be followed by Lhe
enacLmenL of companlon leglslaLlon by Lhe arllamenL of Canada leglslaLlon Lo creaLe Lhe new laws and
lnsLlLuLlons needed Lo lmplemenL Lhe renewed relaLlonshlp 1helr comblned purpose ls Lo provlde Lhe
auLhorlLy and Lools for Aborlglnal people Lo sLrucLure Lhelr own pollLlcal soclal and economlc fuLure 3
Lypes of self governmenL naLlon governmenL publlc governmenL and communlLy lnLeresL governmenL
llnanclng self governmenL ls anoLher lssue (eg developlng own source revenues such as a LaxaLlon
sysLem)

8edlsLrlbuLlng lands and resources Aborlglnal land ln relaLlon Lo Lhe slze of Canada ls small 1reaLy
agreemenLs dld noL end Lhe confllcL Some Aborlglnal naLlons have gone Lo courL Lo force governmenLs
Lo recognlze Lhelr rlghLs Lo land and resources and some have been successful A serles of courL
declslons has conflrmed LhaL Aborlglnal peoples have more Lhan a sLrong moral case for redress on land
and resource lssues Lhey have legal rlghLs 1he law of Aborlglnal LlLle esLabllshes Lhree Lhlngs (1)
Aborlglnal people have rlghLs of occupancy or use of porLlons of Canada LhaL far exceed Lhelr currenL
land base 1hese rlghLs are based on Lhelr hlsLory of havlng llved ln and used Lhose lands slnce Llme
lmmemorlal (2) AgreemenLs beLween Lhe Crown and an Aborlglnal naLlon (such as LreaLles) musL be
worked ouL before nonAborlglnal people can occupy or use LhaL naLlons LradlLlonal lands (3) 1he
Crown of Canada ls Lhe guardlan of Aborlglnal LlLle Lo Lhelr LradlLlonal lands and ls obllged Lo supporL
and proLecL Lhelr lnLeresLs ln Lhose lands 8uL Lhe courLs are a cumbersome cosLly and someLlmes
lnsenslLlve way Lo solve Lhe human lssues LhaL underlle land and resource clalms 1he exlsLlng land
clalms seLLlemenL process ls deeply flawed lL assumes LhaL no Aborlglnal rlghLs apply on Crown land
unless Aborlglnal naLlons can prove oLherwlse 1hls poslLlon ls aL odds wlLh Lhe docLrlne of conLlnulng
Aborlglnal LlLle and wlLh Lhe duLy of Lhe Crown Lo proLecL Aborlglnal lnLeresLs 1he governmenL of
Canada conLrols Lhe process lL acLs as defender of Lhe Crowns lnLeresLs and also as [udge and [ury on
clalms 1hls ls a clear confllcL of lnLeresL slnce lL conslders lLself Lhe loser when a clalm ls seLLled ln
favour of Aborlglnal people A new process for negoLlaLlng Lhe falr dlsLrlbuLlon of lands and resources ls
long overdue 1he Commlsslon proposes LhaL Lhls be handled as parL of a new LreaLy process lallure Lo
redlsLrlbuLe land and resources wlll doom Aborlglnal people Lo a sLaLe of dependency on oLher
Canadlans a sure reclpe for grlevance on boLh sldes

Lconomlc developmenL Aborlglnal people wanL Lo make a decenL llvlng Lo be free of dependence on
oLhers free of Lhe soclal sLlgma and sense of personal fallure LhaL go wlLh dependence and free of Lhe
deblllLaLlng effecLs of poverLy Lconomlc selfrellance wlll leL Lhem Lhrlve as lndlvlduals and as naLlons
and make Lhelr new governmenLs a success Several facLors wlll make revlLallzaLlon of Aborlglnal
economles a blg challenge dependence on governmenL for funds lnequallLy varlablllLy (ln LhaL
aborlglnal communlLles are locaLed all over Lhe counLry) Cwnershlp of lands and resources ls essenLlal
Lo creaLe lncome and wealLh for Aborlglnal lndlvlduals and naLlons 1ransformlng Aborlglnal economles
from dependence Lo selfrellance wlll noL be easy 1he greaLesL boosL for mosL naLlons wlll come from
access Lo a falr share of lands and resources 8uL LhaL won'L be enough We call on federal and provlnclal
governmenLs Lo enLer lnLo longLerm developmenL agreemenLs wlLh Aborlglnal naLlons Lo provlde
supporL advlce and sLable fundlng for economlc developmenL 1he employmenL problem ls lmmense
and needs reform/supporL ubllc lnvesLmenL ln educaLlon and Lralnlng ls vlLal Lo lmprove employmenL
prospecLs for Aborlglnal people ln Lhe exlsLlng [ob markeL AlLernaLlves Lo welfare are needed 1here
may never be enough [obs Lo go around ln Aborlglnal communlLles ?eL soclal asslsLance as now
dellvered ls noL a good way of provldlng cash lncome for lL Lraps reclplenLs ln a marglnal exlsLence

1reaLles Lhe mechanlsm for change 1he Commlsslon proposes a wlderanglng agenda for change Lo
achleve Lwo goals - 8ebulldlng Aborlglnal naLlons as Lhe besL and proper way for Aborlglnal people Lo
proLecL Lhelr herlLage and ldenLlLy resLore healLh and prosperlLy Lo Lhelr communlLles and reorganlze
Lhelr relaLlons wlLh Canada - 8esLoraLlon of relaLlons of muLual respecL and falr deallng beLween
Aborlglnal and nonAborlglnal people As complex as Lhe pro[ecL appears lL can be done 1he cenLral
mechanlsm of change ls Lhe LreaLy We propose LhaL Lhe LreaLy relaLlonshlp be resLored and used from
now on as Lhe basls of Lhe parLnershlp beLween Aborlglnal and nonAborlglnal people ln Canada
lmplemenLaLlon of LreaLy Lerms and promlses was problemaLlc from Lhe sLarL As Llme passed and Lhe
balance of power beLween Aborlglnal and nonAborlglnal people shlfLed governmenLs were able Lo
lgnore Lerms and promlses LhaL no longer sulLed Lhem Cn Lhe second polnL Lhe Commlsslon has
concluded LhaL Lhe LreaLles should be lmplemenLed Lo reflecL Lhelr splrlL and lnLenL noL [usL Lhelr
words wheLher spoken or wrlLLen lL ls deeply selfservlng of Canadlan auLhorlLles Lo lnslsL on a llLeral
lnLerpreLaLlon of such clauses lf Lhe relaLlonshlp beLween Aborlglnal and nonAborlglnal people ls ever
Lo be seL rlghL Lhe underlylng lnLenLlons of LreaLy promlses noL Lhe leLLer of ouLdaLed Lerms musL
gulde Lhelr presenLday lmplemenLaLlon We belleve LhaL Lhose wlLhouL a LreaLy accord compacL or
oLher agreemenL clarlfylng Lhelr relaLlonshlp wlLh Canada have Lhe rlghL Lo seek one lor lLs parL
Canada has a duLy Lo conclude such LreaLles We propose a new LreaLy process Lo lead Lhe way Lo
reconclllaLlon beLween Aborlglnal and nonAborlglnal people over Lhe nexL 20 years An agreed LreaLy
process can be Lhe mechanlsm for lmplemenLlng vlrLually all Lhe recommendaLlons ln our reporL
lndeed lL may be Lhe only leglLlmaLe way Lo do so 1o seL Lhe sLage we recommend LhaL arllamenL
declare lLs supporL for Lhe LreaLy relaLlonshlp ln Lhe form of a new 8oyal roclamaLlon 8y lLself a new
proclamaLlon wlll change noLhlng lL needs Lo be backed up by companlon leglslaLlon seLLlng ouL guldlng
prlnclples for Lhe LreaLy processes and esLabllshlng new declslonmaklng bodles lndependenL of
governmenL Lo conducL Lhem 1he maln ob[ecLlves of a new LreaLymaklng process would be Lo
esLabllsh Lhe full [urlsdlcLlon of Lhose naLlons as parL of an Aborlglnal order of governmenL expand Lhe
land and resource base under Lhelr conLrol

1he relaLlonshlp resLrucLured We have ouLllned ma[or sLeps needed Lo Lransform Lhe relaLlonshlp
beLween Aborlglnal people and oLher Canadlans from lLs presenL sLaLe of Lenslon and falled lnlLlaLlves Lo
one of cooperaLlon and growlng successes 1he sLeps are numerous and may seem daunLlng 8uL Lhey
are loglcal Lhey are progresslve Lhey relnforce each oLher and Lhey consLlLuLe a workable plan LeL us
revlew Lhem brlefly (1) 1he federal governmenL should begln Lhe cycle of renewal wlLh an acL of
naLlonal lnLenLlon a new 8oyal roclamaLlon (We propose a new 8oyal roclamaLlon sLaLlng Canadas
commlLmenL Lo prlnclples of muLual recognlLlon respecL responslblllLy and sharlng ln Lhe relaLlonshlp
beLween orlglnal peoples and Lhose who came laLer) (2) arllamenL should enacL companlon leglslaLlon
Lo glve Lhese lnLenLlons form and meanlng and provlde Lhe legal lnsLrumenLs needed Lo lmplemenL
Lhem (3) 1he federal governmenL should provlde a forum for negoLlaLlng a Canadawlde framework
agreemenL Lo lay Lhe ground rules for processes Lo esLabllsh Lhe new relaLlonshlp (4) Aborlglnal naLlons
should begln Lhelr rebulldlng processes (3) All governmenLs should prepare Lo enLer lnLo Lhe new LreaLy
process (6) CovernmenLs should Lake lnLerlm sLeps as proposed by Lhls Commlsslon Lo redlsLrlbuLe
lands and resources (7) Aborlglnal and nonAborlglnal governmenLs should cooperaLe Lo sLlmulaLe
economlc developmenL

Aborlglnal 8lghLs

8 v Sparrow ((1) 1he word exlsLlng ln s 33 means LhaL s 33 only proLecLs unexLlngulshed aborlglnal rlghLs
and LreaLles (2) 1he words recognlzed and afflrmed" ln s 33 mean LhaL aborlglnal rlghLs/LreaLles are
consLlLuLlonally proLecLed buL are noL absoluLe rlghLs and may be lnfrlnged lf Lhe LesL of [usLlfled
lnLerference" ls meL (3) SeLs ouL Lhe LesL of [usLlfled lnLerference) lAC1S 1he appellanL a member of
Lhe Musqueam lndlan 8and was charged under s 61(1) of Lhe llsherles AcL of Lhe offence of flshlng
wlLh a drlfL neL longer Lhan LhaL permlLLed by Lhe Lerms of Lhe 8ands lndlan food flshlng llcence Pe has
LhroughouL admlLLed Lhe facLs alleged Lo consLlLuLe Lhe offence buL has defended Lhe charge on Lhe
basls LhaL he was exerclslng an exlsLlng aborlglnal rlghL Lo flsh and LhaL Lhe neL lengLh resLrlcLlon
conLalned ln Lhe 8ands llcence ls lnconslsLenL wlLh s 33(1) of Lhe ConsLlLuLlon AcL 1982 and Lherefore
lnvalld lSSuL WheLher Lhe respondenL was exerclslng an aborlglnal rlghL" wlLhln Lhe meanlng of s 33(1)
8LASCnlnC 1he word exlsLlng" ln s 33 WhaL ls Lhe sLaLus of aborlglnal or LreaLy rlghLs LhaL had been
exLlngulshed or regulaLed before 1982? 1he word exlsLlng makes lL clear LhaL Lhe rlghLs Lo whlch s
33(1) applles are Lhose LhaL were ln exlsLence or unexLlngulshed when Lhe ConsLlLuLlon AcL 1982
came lnLo effecL 1hls means LhaL exLlngulshed rlghLs are noL revlved by Lhe ConsLlLuLlon AcL 1982 A
rlghL LhaL has been valldly exLlngulshed before 1982 ls noL proLecLed by s 33 Also Lhe phrase exlsLlng
aborlglnal rlghLs musL be lnLerpreLed flexlbly so as Lo permlL Lhelr evoluLlon over Llme 1hose rlghLs
are afflrmed ln a conLemporary form raLher Lhan ln Lhelr prlmeval slmpllclLy and vlgour 1he aborlglnal
rlghL" 1haL Mr Sparrow was flshlng ln anclenL Lrlbal LerrlLory where hls ancesLors had flshed from Llme
lmmemorlal ln LhaL parL of Lhe mouLh of Lhe lraser 8lver for salmon ls supporLed by Lhe evldence and
was noL conLesLed 1he respondenL conLends however LhaL Lhe progresslve resLrlcLlon and deLalled
regulaLlon of Lhe flsherles has had Lhe effecL of exLlngulshlng any aborlglnal rlghL Lo flsh 8uL Lhls
argumenL confuses regulaLlon wlLh exLlngulshmenL rlor Lo 1982 when Lhls provlslon was enacLed Lhe
only way exLlngulshmenL could have occurred ls wlLh a clear and plaln lnLenLlon by arllamenL Lhere ls
noLhlng ln Lhe llsherles AcL LhaL demonsLraLes Lhls We have no doubL LhaL Lhe lndlans have an
exlsLlng aborlglnal rlghL Lo flsh ln Lhe relevanL area 8ecognlzed and afflrmed" We now Lurn Lo Lhe
lmpacL of s 33(1) of Lhe ConsLlLuLlon AcL 1982 on Lhe regulaLory power of arllamenL and on Lhe
ouLcome of Lhls appeal speclflcally lL ls clear Lhen LhaL s 33(1) of Lhe ConsLlLuLlon AcL 1982
represenLs Lhe culmlnaLlon of a long and dlfflculL sLruggle ln boLh Lhe pollLlcal forum and Lhe courLs for
Lhe consLlLuLlonal recognlLlon of aborlglnal rlghLs SecLlon 33(1) aL Lhe leasL provldes a solld
consLlLuLlonal base upon whlch subsequenL negoLlaLlons can Lake place lL also affords aborlglnal
peoples consLlLuLlonal proLecLlon agalnsL provlnclal leglslaLlve power ln our oplnlon Cuerln LogeLher
wlLh 8 v 1aylor and Wllllams ground a general guldlng prlnclple for s 33(1) 1haL ls Lhe CovernmenL
has Lhe responslblllLy Lo acL ln a flduclary capaclLy wlLh respecL Lo aborlglnal people 1he relaLlonshlp
beLween Lhe CovernmenL and aborlglnals ls LrusL llke raLher Lhan adversarlal and conLemporary
recognlLlon and afflrmaLlon of aborlglnal rlghLs musL be deflned ln llghL of Lhls hlsLorlc relaLlonshlp 1he
consLlLuLlonal recognlLlon afforded by Lhe provlslon Lherefore glves a measure of conLrol over
governmenL conducL and a sLrong check on leglslaLlve power Whlle lL does noL promlse lmmunlLy from
governmenL regulaLlon ln a socleLy LhaL ln Lhe LwenLleLh cenLury ls lncreaslngly more complex
lnLerdependenL and sophlsLlcaLed and where exhausLlble resources need proLecLlon and managemenL
lL does hold Lhe Crown Lo a subsLanLlve promlse 1he governmenL ls requlred Lo bear Lhe burden of
[usLlfylng any leglslaLlon LhaL has some negaLlve effecL on any aborlglnal rlghL proLecLed under s 33(1)
ln shorL s 33(1) ls a consLlLuLlonal guaranLee of aborlglnal and LreaLy rlghLs Powever Lhe guaranLee
lsn'L absoluLe and Lhe s 33 rlghLs are sub[ecL Lo regulaLlon by federal laws provlded LhaL Lhe laws meeL
a sLandard of [usLlflcaLlon SecLlon 33(1) and !usLlfled lnLerferences 1he flrsL quesLlon Lo be asked ls
wheLher Lhe leglslaLlon ln quesLlon has Lhe effecL of lnLerferlng wlLh an exlsLlng aborlglnal rlghL lf lL
does have such an effecL lL represenLs a prlma facle lnfrlngemenL of s 33(1) Ask ls Lhe llmlLaLlon
unreasonable? Second does Lhe regulaLlon lmpose undue hardshlp? 1hlrd does Lhe regulaLlon deny Lo
Lhe holders of Lhe rlghL Lhelr preferred means of exerclslng LhaL rlghL? 1he onus of provlng a prlma
facle lnfrlngemenL lles on Lhe lndlvldual or group challenglng Lhe leglslaLlon lf Lhere ls a prlma facle
lnfrlngemenL Lhe second quesLlon ls wheLher Lhe Crown can [usLlfy lL (for Lhe law Lo be upheld Lhere
musL be senslLlvlLy Lo and respecL for Lhe rlghLs of aborlglnal peoples on behalf of Lhe governmenL) (a)
WhaL consLlLuLes leglLlmaLe regulaLlon of a consLlLuLlonal aborlglnal rlghL ls Lhere a valld leglslaLlve
ob[ecLlve? ls Lhe regulaLlon soughL Lo be lmposed requlred Lo compleLe LhaL ob[ecLlve? lf yes go on Lo
(b) (b) Conslder Lhe speclal LrusL relaLlonshlp and responslblllLy of governmenL vls a vls aborlglnals
1here musL be a llnk beLween Lhe quesLlon of [usLlflcaLlon and Lhe allocaLlon of prlorlLles ln Lhe flshery

8 v van der eeL (1he CourL arLlculaLed Lhe legal LesL Lo be used Lo ldenLlfy an exlsLlng aborlglnal rlghL"
wlLhln Lhe meanlng of s 33) lAC1S 1he appellanL uoroLhy van der eeL was charged under s 61(1) of
Lhe llsherles AcL 8SC 1970 c l14 wlLh Lhe offence of selllng flsh caughL under Lhe auLhorlLy of an
lndlan food flsh llcence conLrary Lo s 27(3) of Lhe 8rlLlsh Columbla llshery (Ceneral) 8egulaLlons
SC8/84248 1he charges arose ouL of Lhe sale by Lhe appellanL of 10 salmon 1he appellanL a member
of Lhe SLolo has noL conLesLed Lhese facLs aL any Llme lnsLead defendlng Lhe charges agalnsL her on Lhe
basls LhaL ln selllng Lhe flsh she was exerclslng an exlsLlng aborlglnal rlghL Lo sell flsh 1he appellanL has
based her defence on Lhe poslLlon LhaL Lhe resLrlcLlons lmposed by s 27(3) of Lhe 8egulaLlons lnfrlnge
her exlsLlng aborlglnal rlghL Lo sell flsh and are Lherefore lnvalld on Lhe basls LhaL Lhey vlolaLe s 33(1) of
Lhe ConsLlLuLlon AcL 1982 lSSuL Pow are Lhe aborlglnal rlghLs recognlzed and afflrmed by s 33(1) of
Lhe ConsLlLuLlon AcL 1982 Lo be deflned? 8LASCnlnC AlLhough equal ln lmporLance and slgnlflcance
Lo Lhe rlghLs enshrlned ln Lhe CharLer aborlglnal rlghLs musL be vlewed dlfferenLly from CharLer rlghLs
because Lhey are rlghLs held only by aborlglnal members of Canadlan socleLy 1he Lask of Lhls CourL ls Lo
deflne aborlglnal rlghLs ln a manner whlch recognlzes LhaL aborlglnal rlghLs are rlghLs buL whlch does so
wlLhouL loslng slghL of Lhe facL LhaL Lhey are rlghLs held by aborlglnal people because Lhey are
aborlglnal 1he way Lo accompllsh Lhls Lask ls as was noLed aL Lhe ouLseL Lhrough a purposlve approach
Lo s 33(1) lL ls Lhrough ldenLlfylng Lhe lnLeresLs LhaL s 33(1) was lnLended Lo proLecL LhaL Lhe dual
naLure of aborlglnal rlghLs wlll be comprehended 1hls purposlve approach musL be gulded by Lhe
general prlnclple LhaL s 33(1) should be glven a generous and llberal lnLerpreLaLlon ln favour of
aborlglnal peoples whlch arlses from Lhe naLure of Lhe relaLlonshlp b/w Lhe Crown and aborlglnals (le
flduclary one) A purposlve analysls of s 33(1) resulLs ln Lhe followlng concluslons Lhe aborlglnal rlghLs
recognlzed and afflrmed by s 33(1) are besL undersLood as flrsL Lhe means by whlch Lhe ConsLlLuLlon
recognlzes Lhe facL LhaL prlor Lo Lhe arrlval of Luropeans ln norLh Amerlca Lhe land was already occupled
by dlsLlncLlve aborlglnal socleLles and as second Lhe means by whlch LhaL prlor occupaLlon ls
reconclled wlLh Lhe asserLlon of Crown soverelgnLy over Canadlan LerrlLory 1he conLenL of aborlglnal
rlghLs musL be dlrecLed aL fulfllllng boLh of Lhese purposes Lhe nexL secLlon of Lhe [udgmenL 1esL for
ldenLlfylng aborlglnal rlghLs ln s 33(1) 1he LesL for ldenLlfylng Lhe aborlglnal rlghLs recognlzed and
afflrmed by s 33(1) musL be dlrecLed aL ldenLlfylng Lhe cruclal elemenLs of Lhose preexlsLlng dlsLlncLlve
socleLles 1he followlng LesL should be employed ln order Lo be an aborlglnal rlghL an acLlvlLy musL be
an elemenL of a pracLlce cusLom or LradlLlon lnLegral Lo Lhe dlsLlncLlve culLure of Lhe aborlglnal group
clalmlng Lhe rlghL" 1hlngs LhaL musL be consldered ln applylng Lhe LesL (1) CourLs musL ldenLlfy
preclsely whaL lL ls LhaL ls belng clalmed (2) MusL saLlsfy Lhe lnLegral" LesL 1he clalmanL musL
demonsLraLe LhaL Lhe pracLlce cusLom or LradlLlon was a cenLral and slgnlflcanL parL of Lhe socleLys
dlsLlncLlve culLure prlor Lo conLacL noLe LhaL Lhls LesL requlres Lhe pracLlce Lo be dlsLlncLlve noL dlsLlncL
ulsLlncL means unlque Conslder Lhlngs llke wheLher Lhe pracLlce was merely lncldenLal Lo anoLher
pracLlce (a) 1he pracLlces cusLoms and LradlLlons musL have conLlnulLy wlLh Lhose LhaL exlsLed prlor Lo
conLacL (b) CourLs musL approach Lhe rules of evldence ln llghL of Lhe evldenLlary dlfflculLles lnherenL ln
ad[udlcaLlng aborlglnal clalms (c) Clalms Lo aborlglnal rlghLs musL be ad[udlcaLed on a speclflc raLher
Lhan general basls Lhe exlsLence of an aborlglnal rlghL wlll depend enLlrely on Lhe pracLlces cusLoms
and LradlLlons of Lhe parLlcular aborlglnal communlLy clalmlng Lhe rlghL PLLu 1he appellanL has falled
Lo demonsLraLe LhaL Lhe exchange of flsh for money or oLher goods was an lnLegral parL of Lhe
dlsLlncLlve SLolo socleLy whlch exlsLed prlor Lo conLacL 1he exchange of flsh Look place buL was noL a
cenLral slgnlflcanL or deflnlng feaLure of SLolo socleLy 1he appellanL has Lhus falled Lo demonsLraLe
LhaL Lhe exchange of salmon for money or oLher goods by Lhe SLolo ls an aborlglnal rlghL recognlzed and
afflrmed under s 33(1) of Lhe ConsLlLuLlon AcL 1982

8 v Sappler 8 v Cray (Lven Lhough a pracLlce may have been underLaken for survlval purposes lL can
sLlll be consldered lnLegral Lo an Aborlglnal communlLy's dlsLlncLlve culLure) lAC1S Charged w/ unlawful
possesslon or cuLLlng of Crown Llmber ln defence Lhey say Lhey possess an aborlglnal and LreaLy rlghL
Lo harvesL Llmber for personal use lSSuL WheLher a rlghL Lo harvesL Llmber exlsLed preconLacL for Lhe
relevanL aborlglnal peoples 8LASCnlnC 1he Aborlglnal rlghL clalm ln order Lo be an aborlglnal rlghL an
acLlvlLy musL be an elemenL of a pracLlce cusLom or LradlLlon lnLegral Lo Lhe dlsLlncLlve culLure of Lhe
aborlglnal group clalmlng Lhe rlghL 8 v van der eeL 1he respondenLs rely on Lhe preconLacL pracLlce
of harvesLlng Llmber ln order Lo esLabllsh Lhelr aborlglnal rlghL SecLlon 33 of Lhe ConsLlLuLlon AcL
1982 seeks Lo provlde a consLlLuLlonal framework for Lhe proLecLlon of Lhe dlsLlncLlve culLures of
aborlglnal peoples so LhaL Lhelr prlor occupaLlon of norLh Amerlca can be recognlzed and reconclled
wlLh Lhe soverelgnLy of Lhe Crown van der eeL aL para 31 ln an ofLquoLed passage Lamer C!
acknowledged ln van der eeL aL para 30 LhaL Lhe docLrlne of aborlglnal rlghLs exlsLs and ls
recognlzed and afflrmed by s 33(1) because of one slmple facL when Luropeans arrlved ln norLh
Amerlca aborlglnal peoples were already here llvlng ln communlLles on Lhe land and parLlclpaLlng ln
dlsLlncLlve culLures as Lhey had done for cenLurles" 1he goal for courLs ls Lherefore Lo deLermlne how
Lhe clalmed rlghL relaLes Lo Lhe preconLacL culLure or way of llfe of an aborlglnal socleLy Second lL ls
also necessary Lo ldenLlfy Lhe preconLacL pracLlce upon whlch Lhe clalm ls founded ln order Lo conslder
how lL mlghL have evolved Lo lLs presenLday form S1L 1 (CPA8AC1L8lZA1lCn) ln Lhe presenL cases
Lhe relevanL pracLlce for Lhe purposes of Lhe van der eeL LesL ls harvesLlng wood 1he record shows
LhaL wood was used Lo fulfll Lhe communlLles' domesLlc needs for such Lhlngs as shelLer LransporLaLlon
Lools and fuel l would Lherefore characLerlze Lhe respondenLs' clalm as a rlghL Lo harvesL wood for
domesLlc uses as a member of Lhe aborlglnal communlLy S1L 2 (1he ln1LC8AL Lo a ulS1lnC1lvL
CuL1u8L 1LS1) Lvldence esLabllshed LhaL Lhe wood was crlLlcally lmporLanL Lo Lhe MallseeL and
Ml'kmaq people preconLacL lurLher even Lhough Lhe pracLlce may have been underLaken for survlval
purposes lL can sLlll be consldered lnLegral Lo an Aborlglnal communlLy's dlsLlncLlve culLure (1PlS lS 1PL
8lnClAL lSSuL Cn 1PlS ALAL) (a) ConLlnulLy AlLhough Lhe naLure of Lhe pracLlce whlch founds Lhe
aborlglnal rlghL clalm musL be consldered ln Lhe conLexL of Lhe preconLacL dlsLlncLlve culLure of Lhe
parLlcular aborlglnal communlLy Lhe naLure of Lhe rlghL musL be deLermlned ln llghL of presenLday
clrcumsLances loglcal evoluLlon means Lhe same sorL of acLlvlLy carrled on ln Lhe modern economy by
modern means" So Lhe rlghL Lo harvesL wood for Lhe consLrucLlon of Lemporary shelLers musL be
allowed Lo evolve lnLo a rlghL Lo harvesL wood by modern means Lo be used ln Lhe consLrucLlon of a
modern dwelllng Any oLher concluslon would freeze Lhe rlghL ln lLs preconLacL form LxLlngulshmenL
1hls lssue was ralsed ln Lhe Cray case 1he Crown musL show LhaL leglslaLlon evldenced a clear lnLenLlon
Lo exLlngulsh Lhe rlghL 8uL Lhls argumenL falls

8 v owley ((1) lor MeLls clalmanLs of aborlglnal rlghLs Lhe focus on Luropean conLacL had Lo be moved
forward Lo Lhe Llme of effecLlve Luropean conLrol (2) CourLs lays down 3 lndlcla of MeLls people")
lAC1S charged wlLh unlawfully hunLlng moose argues LhaL as MeLls Lhey have an aborlglnal rlghL
Lo hunL for food ln Lhe SaulL SLe Marle area lSSuL WheLher members of Lhe MeLls communlLy ln and
around SaulL SLe Marle en[oy a consLlLuLlonally proLecLed rlghL Lo hunL for food under s 33
8LASCnlnC We uphold Lhe baslc elemenLs of Lhe van der eeL LesL and apply Lhese Lo Lhe
respondenLs' clalm Powever we modlfy cerLaln elemenLs of Lhe preconLacL LesL Lo reflecL Lhe
dlsLlncLlve hlsLory and posLconLacL eLhnogenesls of Lhe MeLls and Lhe resulLlng dlfferences beLween
lndlan clalms and MeLls clalms 1he preconLacL LesL ls lnadequaLe Lo capLure Lhe range of MeLls
cusLoms pracLlces or LradlLlons LhaL are enLlLled Lo proLecLlon slnce MeLls culLures by deflnlLlon posL
daLe Luropean conLacL llrsL Lhe courL seL ouL Lhe lndlcla Lo deLermlne wheLher a clalmanL meeLs Lhe
deflnlLlon of MeLls people (1) SelfldenLlflcaLlon (2) AncesLral connecLlon (3) CommunlLy accepLance
ln Lhls case Lhere ls no reason Lo overLurn Lhe 1!'s flndlngs LhaL ls member of MeLls communlLy LhaL
arose and sLlll exlsLs ln and around SaulL SLe Marle 1he relevanL Llme frame? 1he LesL for MeLls
pracLlces should focus on ldenLlfylng Lhose pracLlces cusLoms and LradlLlons LhaL are lnLegral Lo Lhe
MeLls communlLy's dlsLlncLlve exlsLence and relaLlonshlp Lo Lhe land 1hls unlque hlsLory can mosL
approprlaLely be accommodaLed by a posLconLacL buL preconLrol LesL LhaL ldenLlfles Lhe Llme when
Luropeans effecLlvely esLabllshed pollLlcal and legal conLrol ln a parLlcular area 1he focus should be on
Lhe perlod afLer a parLlcular MeLls communlLy arose and before lL came under Lhe effecLlve conLrol of
Luropean laws and cusLoms (1PL 8LCCn18CL 1LS1) 1he van der eeL LesL S1L 1 (CharacLerlzaLlon
of Lhe rlghL) Pere Lhe rlghL belng clalmed can Lherefore be characLerlzed as Lhe rlghL Lo hunL for food ln
Lhe envlrons of SaulL SLe Marle S1L 2 (lnLegral LesL) 1he pracLlce of subslsLence hunLlng and flshlng
was a consLanL ln Lhe MeLls communlLy even Lhough Lhe avallablllLy of parLlcular specles mlghL have
waxed and waned 1he evldence lndlcaLes LhaL subslsLence hunLlng was an lmporLanL aspecL of MeLls
llfe and a deflnlng feaLure of Lhelr speclal relaLlonshlp Lo Lhe land Lvldence supporLs Lhe Lrlal [udge's
flndlng LhaL hunLlng for food was lnLegral Lo Lhe MeLls way of llfe aL SaulL SLe Marle ln Lhe perlod [usL
prlor Lo 1830 (whlch meeLs Lhe modlfled Llme frame LesL) (a) ConLlnulLy PunLlng for food was an
lmporLanL feaLure of Lhe SaulL SLe Marle MeLls communlLy and Lhe pracLlce has been conLlnuous Lo Lhe
presenL lnfrlngemenL of rlghL CnLarlo currenLly does noL recognlze any MeLls rlghL Lo hunL for food or
any speclal access rlghLs Lo naLural resources" for Lhe MeLls whaLsoever (appellanL's record aL p
1029) 1hls lack of recognlLlon and Lhe consequenL appllcaLlon of Lhe challenged provlslons Lo Lhe
owleys lnfrlnge Lhelr aborlglnal rlghL Lo hunL for food as a conLlnuaLlon of Lhe proLecLed hlsLorlcal
pracLlces of Lhe SaulL SLe Marle MeLls communlLy

ls Lhe lnfrlngemenL [usLlfled? 1he maln [usLlflcaLlon advanced by Lhe appellanL ls LhaL of conservaLlon
AlLhough conservaLlon ls clearly a very lmporLanL concern we agree wlLh Lhe Lrlal [udge LhaL Lhe record
here does noL supporL Lhls [usLlflcaLlon lf Lhe moose populaLlon ln Lhls parL of CnLarlo were under
LhreaL and Lhere was no evldence LhaL lL ls Lhe MeLls would sLlll be enLlLled Lo a prlorlLy allocaLlon Lo
saLlsfy Lhelr subslsLence needs ln accordance wlLh Lhe crlLerla seL ouL ln 8 v Sparrow PLLu LeglslaLlon
ls lnvalld

Palda naLlon v 8C

(1hls case deals wlLh Lhe slLuaLlon where aborlglnal lnLeresLs are ln Lhe process of belng proved (1) 1he
duLy Lo consulL and accommodaLe ls rooLed ln Lhe honour of Lhe Crown (2)1he duLy arlses when Lhe
Crown has knowledge real or consLrucLlve of Lhe poLenLlal exlsLence of Lhe Aborlglnal rlghL or LlLle and
conLemplaLes conducL LhaL mlghL adversely affecL lL LhaL ls knowledge of a credlble buL unproven
clalm Lrlggers Lhe duLy (3) 1he scope of Lhe duLy ls proporLlonaLe Lo a prellmlnary assessmenL of Lhe
sLrengLh of Lhe case supporLlng Lhe exlsLence of Lhe rlghL or LlLle and Lo Lhe serlousness of Lhe
poLenLlally adverse effecL upon Lhe rlghL or LlLle clalmed (4) When Lhe consulLaLlon process suggesLs
amendmenL of Crown pollcy we arrlve aL Lhe sLage of accommodaLlon (3) 1hlrd parLles do noL owe
such a duLy (6) 1he provlnclal and federal governmenL are sub[ecL Lo Lhe duLy (6) 1here ls no duLy for
Lhe governmenLs Lo agree)

lAC1S 1hls brlngs us Lo Lhe lssue before Lhls CourL 1he governmenL holds legal LlLle Lo Lhe land
Lxerclslng LhaL legal LlLle lL has granLed Weyerhaeuser Lhe rlghL Lo harvesL Lhe foresLs ln 8lock 6 of Lhe
land (whlch ls sub[ecL Lo a land LlLle clalm by Lhe Palda people) lSSuL ls Lhe governmenL requlred Lo
consulL wlLh Palda people abouL declslons Lo harvesL Lhe foresLs and Lo accommodaLe Lhelr concerns
abouL whaL lf any foresL ln 8lock 6 should be harvesLed before Lhey have proven Lhelr LlLle Lo land?
8LASCnlnC Source of duLy Lo consulL and accommodaLe uuLy grounded ln honour of Lhe Crown ln all
lLs deallngs wlLh Aborlglnal peoples from Lhe asserLlon of soverelgnLy Lo Lhe resoluLlon of clalms and
Lhe lmplemenLaLlon of LreaLles Lhe Crown musL acL honourably Where LreaLles remaln Lo be concluded
Lhe honour of Lhe Crown requlres negoLlaLlons leadlng Lo a [usL seLLlemenL of Aborlglnal clalms
underlylng Lhls duLy ls s 33 of Lhe ConsLlLuLlon whlch lmplles a duLy Lo consulL and lf approprlaLe
accommodaLe 1he CourL's semlnal declslon ln uelgamuukw supra aL para 168 ln Lhe conLexL of a
clalm for LlLle Lo land and resources conflrmed and expanded on Lhe duLy Lo consulL suggesLlng Lhe
conLenL of Lhe duLy varled wlLh Lhe clrcumsLances uL slmply Canada's Aborlglnal peoples were here
when Luropeans came and were never conquered Many bands reconclled Lhelr clalms wlLh Lhe
soverelgnLy of Lhe Crown Lhrough negoLlaLed LreaLles CLhers noLably ln 8rlLlsh Columbla have yeL Lo
do so 1he poLenLlal rlghLs embedded ln Lhese clalms are proLecLed by s 33 of Lhe ConsLlLuLlon AcL
1982 1he honour of Lhe Crown requlres LhaL Lhese rlghLs be deLermlned recognlzed and respecLed
1hls ln Lurn requlres Lhe Crown acLlng honourably Lo parLlclpaLe ln processes of negoLlaLlon Whlle
Lhls process conLlnues Lhe honour of Lhe Crown may requlre lL Lo consulL and where lndlcaLed
accommodaLe Aborlglnal lnLeresLs When Lhe duLy Lo consulL and accommodaLe arlses ls Lhe Crown
under Lhe aegls of lLs asserLed soverelgnLy enLlLled Lo use Lhe resources aL lssue as lL chooses pendlng
proof and resoluLlon of Lhe Aborlglnal clalm? Cr musL lL ad[usL lLs conducL Lo reflecL Lhe as yeL
unresolved rlghLs clalmed by Lhe Aborlglnal clalmanLs? 1he answer once agaln lles ln Lhe honour of Lhe
Crown 1he Crown acLlng honourably cannoL cavallerly run roughshod over Aborlglnal lnLeresLs where
clalms affecLlng Lhese lnLeresLs are belng serlously pursued ln Lhe process of LreaLy negoLlaLlon and
proof 1he Crown lsn'L rendered lmpoLenL lL may conLlnue Lo manage Lhe resource ln quesLlon
pendlng clalms resoluLlon buL dependlng on Lhe clrcumsLances Lhe honour of Lhe Crown may requlre lL
Lo consulL and reasonably accommodaLe Aborlglnal lnLeresLs nelLher Lhe auLhorlLles nor pracLlcal
conslderaLlons supporL Lhe vlew LhaL a duLy Lo consulL and lf approprlaLe accommodaLe arlses only
upon flnal deLermlnaLlon of Lhe scope and conLenL of Lhe rlghL 8uL when preclsely does a duLy Lo
consulL arlse? 1he foundaLlon of Lhe duLy ln Lhe Crown's honour and Lhe goal of reconclllaLlon suggesL
LhaL Lhe duLy arlses when Lhe Crown has knowledge real or consLrucLlve of Lhe poLenLlal exlsLence of
Lhe Aborlglnal rlghL or LlLle and conLemplaLes conducL LhaL mlghL adversely affecL lL knowledge of a
credlble buL unproven clalm sufflces Lo Lrlgger a duLy Lo consulL and accommodaLe 1he scope and
conLenL of Lhe duLy Lo consulL and accommodaLe ln general Lerms lL may be asserLed LhaL Lhe scope of
Lhe duLy ls proporLlonaLe Lo a prellmlnary assessmenL of Lhe sLrengLh of Lhe case supporLlng Lhe
exlsLence of Lhe rlghL or LlLle and Lo Lhe serlousness of Lhe poLenLlally adverse effecL upon Lhe rlghL or
LlLle clalmed ln all cases Lhe honour of Lhe Crown requlres LhaL Lhe Crown acL wlLh good falLh Lo
provlde meanlngful consulLaLlon approprlaLe Lo Lhe clrcumsLances Sharp deallng ls noL permlLLed
Powever Lhere ls no duLy Lo agree raLher Lhe commlLmenL ls Lo a meanlngful process of consulLaLlon
AL one end of Lhe specLrum lle cases where Lhe clalm Lo LlLle ls weak Lhe Aborlglnal rlghL llmlLed or Lhe
poLenLlal for lnfrlngemenL mlnor ln such cases Lhe only duLy on Lhe Crown may be Lo glve noLlce
dlsclose lnformaLlon and dlscuss any lssues ralsed ln response Lo Lhe noLlce AL Lhe oLher end of Lhe
specLrum lle cases where a sLrong prlma facle case for Lhe clalm ls esLabllshed Lhe rlghL and poLenLlal
lnfrlngemenL ls of hlgh slgnlflcance Lo Lhe Aborlglnal peoples and Lhe rlsk of noncompensable damage
ls hlgh ln such cases deep consulLaLlon almed aL flndlng a saLlsfacLory lnLerlm soluLlon may be requlred
1he conLrolllng quesLlon ln all slLuaLlons ls whaL ls requlred Lo malnLaln Lhe honour of Lhe Crown and Lo
effecL reconclllaLlon beLween Lhe Crown and Lhe Aborlglnal peoples wlLh respecL Lo Lhe lnLeresLs aL
sLake When Lhe consulLaLlon process suggesLs amendmenL of Crown pollcy we arrlve aL Lhe sLage of
accommodaLlon (le Lhls may requlre Laklng sLeps Lo avold lrreparable harm or Lo mlnlmlze Lhe effecLs
of lnfrlngemenL pendlng flnal resoluLlon of Lhe underlylng clalm) uo Lhlrd parLles owe a duLy Lo consulL
and accommodaLe? no 1he Crown alone remalns legally responslble for Lhe consequences of lLs
acLlons and lnLeracLlons wlLh Lhlrd parLles LhaL affecL Aborlglnal lnLeresLs 1he provlnces' duLy
rovlnces and federal governmenL are sub[ecL Lo Lhls duLy

1aku 8lver v 8C

(Lxample of how Lhe duLy Lo consulL ls fulfllled and relnforces Lhe prlnclple seL ouL ln Palda LhaL
meanlngful consulLaLlon doesn'L requlre agreemenL)

lAC1S A mlnlng company applled Lo Lhe 8C governmenL for permlsslon Lo reopen an old mlne ln an
area LhaL was sub[ecL of an unresolved land clalm by Lhe 181ln people 1hls appllcaLlon Lrlggered a
sLaLuLory envlronmenLal assessmenL process whlch ended wlLh Lhe approval of Lhe appllcaLlon Lo
reopen Lhe mlne 1hrough Lhe envlronmenLal assessmenL process Lhe 181ln's concerns wlLh Lhe road
proposal became apparenL lLs concerns crysLalllzed around Lhe poLenLlal effecL on wlldllfe and
LradlLlonal land use as well as Lhe lack of adequaLe basellne lnformaLlon by whlch Lo measure
subsequenL effecLs lSSuL uuLy Lo consulL and of accommodaLlon 8LASCnlnC ln Palda naLlon v
8rlLlsh Columbla (MlnlsLer of loresLs) Lhls CourL has conflrmed Lhe exlsLence of Lhe Crown's duLy Lo
consulL and where lndlcaLed Lo accommodaLe Aborlglnal peoples prlor Lo proof of rlghLs or LlLle clalms
1he prlnclple of Lhe honour of Lhe Crown grounds Lhe Crown's duLy Lo consulL and lf lndlcaLed
accommodaLe Aborlglnal peoples even prlor Lo proof of asserLed Aborlglnal rlghLs and LlLle 1he duLy of
honour derlves from Lhe Crown's asserLlon of soverelgnLy ln Lhe face of prlor Aborlglnal occupaLlon lL
has been enshrlned ln s 33(1) of Lhe ConsLlLuLlon AcL 1982 whlch recognlzes and afflrms exlsLlng
Aborlglnal rlghLs and LlLles 1he duLy Lo consulL arlses when a Crown acLor has knowledge real or
consLrucLlve of Lhe poLenLlal exlsLence of Aborlglnal rlghLs or LlLle and conLemplaLes conducL LhaL mlghL
adversely affecL Lhem When 8edfern applled for pro[ecL approval ln lLs efforLs Lo reopen Lhe
1ulsequah Chlef Mlne lL was apparenL LhaL Lhe declslon could adversely affecL Lhe 181ln's asserLed
rlghLs and LlLle 1he conLemplaLed declslon Lhus had Lhe poLenLlal Lo lmpacL adversely Lhe rlghLs and
LlLle asserLed by Lhe 181ln lL follows LhaL Lhe honour of Lhe Crown requlred lL Lo consulL and lf
lndlcaLed accommodaLe Lhe 181ln ln maklng Lhe declslon wheLher Lo granL pro[ecL approval Lo 8edfern
and on whaL Lerms 1he scope of Lhe duLy Lo consulL ls proporLlonaLe Lo a prellmlnary assessmenL of
Lhe sLrengLh of Lhe case supporLlng Lhe exlsLence of Lhe rlghL or LlLle and Lo Lhe serlousness of Lhe
poLenLlally adverse effecL upon Lhe rlghL or LlLle clalmed" 1here ls sufflclenL evldence Lo conclude LhaL
Lhe 181ln have prlma facle Aborlglnal rlghLs and LlLle over aL leasL some of Lhe area LhaL Lhey clalm and
Lhe poLenLlally adverse effecL of Lhe MlnlsLers' declslon on Lhe 181ln's clalms appears Lo be relaLlvely
serlous ln summary Lhe 181ln's clalm ls relaLlvely sLrong Whlle lL ls lmposslble Lo provlde a
prospecLlve checkllsL of Lhe level of consulLaLlon requlred lL ls apparenL LhaL Lhe 181ln was enLlLled Lo
someLhlng slgnlflcanLly deeper Lhan mlnlmum consulLaLlon under Lhe clrcumsLances and Lo a level of
responslveness Lo lLs concerns LhaL can be characLerlzed as accommodaLlon 1he Crown fulfllled lLs duLy
Lo consulL and accommodaLe 1he process of granLlng pro[ecL approval Lo 8edfern Look Lhree and a half
years and was conducLed largely under Lhe LnvlronmenLal AssessmenL AcL Members of Lhe 181ln
were lnvlLed Lo parLlclpaLe ln Lhe ro[ecL CommlLLee Lo coordlnaLe revlew PLLu Crow fulfllled duLy

Aborlglnal 1lLle

uelgamuukw v 8C (1he leadlng case on Aborlglnal LlLle and shows how Lo prove lL) lAC1S ln 1984 33
ClLxsan and 13 WeL'suweL'en PeredlLary Chlefs lnsLlLuLed proceedlngs agalnsL Lhe rovlnce of 8rlLlsh
Columbla 1hey clalmed boLh lndlvldually and on behalf of Lhelr respecLlve Pouses ownershlp
(unexLlngulshed Aborlglnal LlLle) and resulLlng [urlsdlcLlon (enLlLlemenL Lo govern by Aborlglnal laws)
over separaLe porLlons of LerrlLory ln norLhwesL 8rlLlsh Columbla LoLalllng 38000 square kllomeLres
lSSuL 1he naLure and scope of Lhe consLlLuLlonal proLecLlon afforded by s 33(1) Lo common law
aborlglnal LlLle 8LASCnlnC 1rlal [udge errors llrsL Lhlng courL noLed ls Lhe errors made by Lhe 1!
lncludlng glvlng llLLle welghL Lo aborlglnal oral hlsLorles and recollecLlons of aborlglnal llve 1hese errors
are parLlcularly worrlsome because oral hlsLorles were of crlLlcal lmporLance Lo Lhe appellanLs' case
1hey used Lhose hlsLorles ln an aLLempL Lo esLabllsh Lhelr occupaLlon and use of Lhe dlspuLed LerrlLory
an essenLlal requlremenL for aborlglnal LlLle 1he Lrlal [udge afLer refuslng Lo admlL or glvlng no
lndependenL welghL Lo Lhese oral hlsLorles reached Lhe concluslon LhaL Lhe appellanLs had noL
demonsLraLed Lhe requlslLe degree of occupaLlon for ownershlp" Pad Lhe Lrlal [udge assessed Lhe oral
hlsLorles correcLly hls concluslons on Lhese lssues of facL mlghL have been very dlfferenL A new Lrlal ls
warranLed

ConLenL of aborlglnal LlLle/how lL's proLecLed by s 33(1)/requlremenLs for proof

Ceneral polnLs 1he parLles dlsagree over wheLher Lhe appellanLs have esLabllshed aborlglnal LlLle Lo Lhe
dlspuLed area Powever slnce Lhose facLual lssues requlre a new Lrlal we cannoL resolve LhaL dlspuLe ln
Lhls appeal 8uL facLual lssues aslde Lhe parLles also have a more fundamenLal dlsagreemenL over Lhe
conLenL of aborlglnal LlLle lLself and lLs recepLlon lnLo Lhe ConsLlLuLlon by s 33(1) ln order Lo glve
guldance Lo Lhe [udge aL Lhe new Lrlal lL ls Lo Lhls lssue LhaL l wlll now Lurn Aborlglnal LlLle ls a rlghL ln
land and as such ls more Lhan Lhe rlghL Lo engage ln speclflc acLlvlLles whlch may be Lhemselves
aborlglnal rlghLs unlque dlmenslons of aborlglnal LlLle Aborlglnal LlLle ls a sul generls lnLeresL ln land
1he ldea LhaL aborlglnal LlLle ls sul generls ls Lhe unlfylng prlnclple underlylng Lhe varlous dlmenslons of
LhaL LlLle Cne dlmenslon ls lnALlAnA8lLl1? (lands can'L be Lransferred sold or surrendered Lo anyone
oLher Lhan Lhe Crown) AnoLher dlmenslon of aborlglnal LlLle ls lLs SCu8CL (lL's source alLhough LhoughL
Lo be ln Lhe 8oyal roclamaLlon 1763 arlses from Lhe prlor occupaLlon of Canada by aborlglnal peoples
whaL makes aborlglnal LlLle sul generls ls LhaL lL arlses from possesslon before Lhe asserLlon of 8rlLlsh
soverelgnLy whereas normal esLaLes llke fee slmple arlse afLerward) A furLher dlmenslon of aborlglnal
LlLle ls Lhe facL LhaL lL ls held CCMMunALL? (aborlglnal LlLle cannoL be held by lndlvldual aborlglnal
persons)

ConLenL AlLhough cases lnvolvlng aborlglnal LlLle have come before Lhls CourL and rlvy Councll before
Lhere has never been a deflnlLlve sLaLemenL from elLher courL on Lhe conLenL of aborlglnal LlLle l have
arrlved aL Lhe concluslon LhaL Lhe conLenL of aborlglnal LlLle can be summarlzed by Lwo proposlLlons
flrsL LhaL aborlglnal LlLle encompasses Lhe rlghL Lo excluslve use and occupaLlon of Lhe land held
pursuanL Lo LhaL LlLle for a varleLy of purposes whlch need noL be aspecLs of Lhose aborlglnal pracLlces
cusLoms and LradlLlons whlch are lnLegral Lo dlsLlncLlve aborlglnal culLures and second LhaL Lhose
proLecLed uses musL noL be lrreconcllable wlLh Lhe naLure of Lhe group's aLLachmenL Lo LhaL land
8egardlng Lhe second proposlLlon lL ls drawn by reference Lo Lhe oLher dlmenslons of aborlglnal LlLle
whlch are sul generls as well" lmpllclL ln Lhe proLecLlon of hlsLorlc paLLerns of occupaLlon ls a
recognlLlon of Lhe lmporLance of Lhe conLlnulLy of Lhe relaLlonshlp of an aborlglnal communlLy Lo lLs land
over Llme As a resulL uses of Lhe lands LhaL would LhreaLen LhaL fuLure relaLlonshlp are by Lhelr very
naLure excluded from Lhe conLenL of aborlglnal LlLle lor example lf occupaLlon ls esLabllshed wlLh
reference Lo Lhe use of Lhe land as a hunLlng ground Lhen Lhe group LhaL successfully clalms aborlglnal
LlLle Lo LhaL land may noL use lL ln such a fashlon as Lo desLroy lLs value for such a use (eg by sLrlp
mlnlng lL) lL ls for Lhls reason also LhaL lands held by vlrLue of aborlglnal LlLle may noL be allenaLed
AllenaLlon would brlng Lo an end Lhe enLlLlemenL of Lhe aborlglnal people Lo occupy Lhe land and would
LermlnaLe Lhelr relaLlonshlp wlLh lL

Aborlglnal LlLle under s 33(1) Aborlglnal LlLle aL common law ls proLecLed ln lLs full form by s 33(1)

roof of aborlglnal LlLle Aborlglnal LlLle ls dlfferenL Lhan aborlglnal rlghLs (whlch are deflned ln Lerms of
acLlvlLles) Aborlglnal LlLle ls a rlghL Lo Lhe land lLself ln order Lo make ouL a clalm for aborlglnal LlLle
Lhe aborlglnal group asserLlng LlLle musL saLlsfy Lhe followlng crlLerla

(l) 1he land musL have been occupled prlor Lo soverelgnLy 1he relevanL Llme perlod for Lhe
esLabllshmenL of LlLle ls Lherefore dlfferenL Lhan for Lhe esLabllshmenL of aborlglnal rlghLs Lo engage ln
speclflc acLlvlLles roof of occupancy musL be esLabllshed by boLh common law (le physlcal
occupaLlon/possesslon) and aborlglnal perspecLlve on land

lf presenL occupaLlon ls relled on as proof of occupaLlon presoverelgnLy Lhere musL be a conLlnulLy
beLween presenL and presoverelgnLy occupaLlon Concluslve evldence of presoverelgnLy occupaLlon
may be dlfflculL Lo come by lnsLead an aborlglnal communlLy may provlde evldence of presenL
occupaLlon as proof of presoverelgnLy occupaLlon ln supporL of a clalm Lo aborlglnal LlLle WhaL ls
requlred ln addlLlon ls a conLlnulLy beLween presenL and presoverelgnLy occupaLlon because Lhe
relevanL Llme for Lhe deLermlnaLlon of aborlglnal LlLle ls aL Lhe Llme before soverelgnLy needless Lo say
Lhere ls no need Lo esLabllsh an unbroken chaln of conLlnulLy

(lll) AL soverelgnLy LhaL occupaLlon musL have been excluslve LxcluslvlLy as an aspecL of aborlglnal LlLle
vesLs ln Lhe aborlglnal communlLy whlch holds Lhe ablllLy Lo exclude oLhers from Lhe lands held pursuanL
Lo LhaL LlLle As wlLh Lhe proof of occupaLlon proof of excluslvlLy musL rely on boLh Lhe perspecLlve of
Lhe common law and Lhe aborlglnal perspecLlve placlng equal welghL on each

lnfrlngemenL of aborlglnal LlLle Lhe LesL of [usLlflcaLlon 1he aborlglnal rlghLs recognlzed and afflrmed
by s 33(1) lncludlng aborlglnal LlLle are noL absoluLe 1hose rlghLs may be lnfrlnged boLh by Lhe federal
(eg Sparrow) and provlnclal (eg CLe) governmenLs Powever s 33(1) requlres LhaL Lhose
lnfrlngemenLs saLlsfy Lhe LesL of [usLlflcaLlon 1he general prlnclples governlng [usLlflcaLlon lald down ln
Sparrow operaLe wlLh respecL Lo lnfrlngemenLs of aborlglnal LlLle (le Ask flrsL wheLher Lhe
lnfrlngemenL ls ln furLherance of a leglslaLlve ob[ecLlve LhaL ls compelllng and subsLanLlal and second
an assessmenL musL be made of wheLher Lhe lnfrlngemenL ls conslsLenL wlLh Lhe speclal flduclary
relaLlonshlp beLween Lhe Crown and aborlglnal peoples Lhe flduclary duLy prlnclple has been
lnLerpreLed ln Lerms of Lhe ldea of prlorlLy namely LhaL aborlglnal demands should be placed flrsL buL
Lhls does noL demand LhaL aborlglnal rlghLs always be glven prlorlLy CLher conLexLs permlL LhaL Lhe
flduclary duLy be arLlculaLed ln oLher ways such as wheLher Lhere has been as llLLle lnfrlngemenL as
posslble ln order Lo effecL Lhe deslred resulL wheLher ln a slLuaLlon of exproprlaLlon falr compensaLlon
ls avallable and wheLher Lhe aborlglnal group ln quesLlon has been consulLed wlLh respecL Lo Lhe
conservaLlon measures belng lmplemenLed) ln Lhls conLexL wlLh regard Lo Lhe second sLage aspecLs of
aborlglnal LlLle suggesL LhaL Lhe flduclary duLy may be arLlculaLed ln a manner dlfferenL Lhan Lhe ldea of
prlorlLy 1hls polnL becomes clear from a comparlson beLween aborlglnal LlLle and Lhe aborlglnal rlghL Lo
flsh for food ln Sparrow 1he aborlglnal rlghL Lo flsh for food by conLrasL does noL conLaln wlLhln lL Lhe
same dlscreLlonary componenL 1hls aspecL of aborlglnal LlLle suggesLs LhaL Lhe flduclary relaLlonshlp
beLween Lhe Crown and aborlglnal peoples may be saLlsfled by Lhe lnvolvemenL of aborlglnal peoples ln
declslons Laken wlLh respecL Lo Lhelr lands Also Lhe economlc aspecL of aborlglnal LlLle suggesLs LhaL
compensaLlon ls relevanL Lo Lhe quesLlon of [usLlflcaLlon as well PLLu 8emlL case back Lo Lrlal

1sllhqoL'ln naLlon v 8C Aborlglnal LlLle (a) naLure Canadlan courLs began Lo ouLllne and deflne
Aborlglnal LlLle ln SL CaLherlne's Mllllng case 1he descrlpLlon of Aborlglnal LlLle as a usufrucLuary rlghL
was favoured by Lhe SCC ln Lhe 1980s (usufrucLuary meanlng a legal rlghL Lo use beneflL from and derlve
proflL from properLy belonglng Lo anoLher person) 8uL vlewed Lhrough a conLemporary lens lL ls noL
surprlslng LhaL Lhe SCC has found LhaL descrlblng Aborlglnal LlLle as a usufruLuary rlghL lsnL' helpful (see
uelgamuukw) now lL can no longer be characLerlzed as such 1he noLlon of an occupancy based
Aborlglnal LlLle sLarLed Lo galn accepLance aL a Llme when counLrles such as Canada began Lhe process of
decolonlzaLlon ln Canada decolonlzaLlon experlenced lLs flrsL legal challenge wlLh Lhe SCC ln Calder
Calder was a Lurnlng polnL ln our baslc undersLandlng of Aborlglnal rlghLs 1he 8aker Lake case declded
shorLly afLer Calder sald LhaL Calder was solld auLhorlLy for Lhe general proposlLlon LhaL Lhe law of
Canada recognlzes Lhe exlsLence of an aborlglnal LlLle lndependenL of 1he 8oyal roclamaLlon or any
oLher prerogaLlve acL or leglslaLlon (lL arlses aL common law) 1he nexL lmporLanL developmenL ln
Canadlan Aborlglnal law was Lhe paLrlaLlon of Lhe Canadlan ConsLlLuLlon wlLh Lhe enacLmenL of Lhe
ConsLlLuLlon AcL s 33(1) rofessor SlaLLery argues LhaL Lhls provlslon represenLs a baslc shlfL ln our
undersLandlng of Lhe consLlLuLlonal foundaLlons of Canada SecLlon 33 renounces Lhe old rules of Lhe
game under whlch Lhe Crown esLabllshed courLs of law and denled Lhose courLs Lhe auLhorlLy Lo
quesLlon soverelgn clalms made by Lhe Crown rofessor argues for a new concepL of Lhe ConsLlLuLlon
whlch he calls Lhe Crganlc Model under whlch lL ls sald LhaL Lhe ConsLlLuLlon ls rooLed ln Canadlan soll
1he vlew LhaL aborlglnal LlLle ls rooLed ln Canadlan soll ls embodled ln Lhe Lheory LhaL LlLle ls sul generls
uL slmply aborlglnal LlLle ln Lhls counLry ls unlque and ln a class by lLself 1he descrlpLlon of Aborlglnal
LlLle as sul generls capLures Lhe essence of a proprleLary rlghL shaped by boLh common law and
Aborlglnal sysLems (noLe Lhe 3 sul generls aspecLs noLed ln uelgamuukw) Cne of Lhe key challenges of
Aborlglnal law ls reconclllaLlon beLween presenL day Aborlglnal LlLle holders and Lhe Crown Any
deflnlLlon of exlsLlng aborlglnal rlghLs musL Lake lnLo accounL LhaL Lhey exlsL ln Lhe conLexL of an
lndusLrlal socleLy wlLh all of lLs complexlLles and compeLlng lnLeresLs 1he common law recognlLlon of
Aborlglnal rlghLs and LlLle calls for a reconclllaLlon of Aborlglnal people's prlor occupaLlon of Canada and
Lhe soverelgnLy of Lhe Crown 1he van der eeL declslon clarlfled our currenL undersLandlng of Lhe
orlgln and naLure of Lhese rlghLs (and arLlculaLed a LesL for deLermlnlng wheLher a parLlcular acLlvlLy ls
proLecLed as an Aborlglnal rlghL) 1oday we no longer speak of an overarchlng Aborlglnal LlLle lL ls
more accuraLe Lo speak of a varleLy of Aborlglnal rlghLs one of whlch ls LlLle Lo land lL ls posslble for an
Aborlglnal group Lo show LhaL a parLlcular pracLlce Laklng place on parLlcular lands was lnLegral Lo Lhelr
dlsLlncLlve culLure so as Lo esLabllsh slLe speclflc Aborlglnal rlghLs buL noL esLabllsh Aborlglnal LlLle on
Lhose same lands uelgamuukw ls a slgnlflcanL case ln relaLlon Lo aborlglnal LlLle 1o summarlze
aborlglnal LlLle ls a SLClLS of aborlglnal rlghL whlch dlffers from aborlglnal rlghLs Lo engage ln parLlcular
acLlvlLles lL confers a sul generls lnLeresL ln land LhaL ls a rlghL Lo Lhe land lLself lL confers a rlghL Lo
excluslve use occupaLlon and possesslon Lo use Lhe land for Lhe general welfare and presenL day needs
of Lhe Aborlglnal communlLy Aborlglnal LlLle also lncludes a proprleLary Lype rlghL Lo choose whaL uses
aborlglnal LlLle holders can make of Lhelr lands whlch ls sub[ecL Lo an lnherenL llmlL whlch ls deflned by
Lhe naLure of Lhe aLLachmenL Lo Lhe land Such lnherenL llmlLs prohlblL uses LhaL would desLroy Lhe
ablllLy of Lhe land Lo susLaln fuLure generaLlons of Aborlglnal peoples Aborlglnal LlLle also has an
economlc componenL whlch wlll ordlnarlly glve rlse Lo falr compensaLlon when Aborlglnal LlLle has been
lnfrlnged Aborlglnal LlLle ls held communally lL ls lnallable Lo Lhlrd parLles buL can be surrendered Lo
Lhe Crown

(b) 1esL for aborlglnal LlLle 1 resoverelgnLy occupaLlon Any land LhaL was occupled presoverelgnLy
and whlch Lhe parLles have malnLalned a subsLanLlal connecLlon wlLh slnce Lhen ls sufflclenLly lmporLanL
Lo be of cenLral slgnlflcance Lo Lhe culLure of Lhe clalmanLs" 1he sLandard of occupaLlon requlred Lo
prove aborlglnal LlLle may be esLabllshed ln a varleLy of ways (eg consLrucLlon of dwelllngs) 2
ConLlnulLy 1hls only becomes an aspecL of Lhe LesL where an aborlglnal clalmanL relles on presenL
occupaLlon Lo ralse an lnference of presoverelgnLy occupaLlon Aborlglnal clalmanLs do noL need Lo
esLabllsh an unbroken chaln of conLlnulLy 3 LxcluslvlLy Lxcluslve occupaLlon may be demonsLraLed Lo
exclude oLhers lncludlng Lhe lnLenLlon and capaclLy Lo reLaln excluslve conLrol of Lhe lands roof musL
rely on boLh common law and aborlglnal perspecLlve on land each belng glven equal welghL

8C 1reaLy Commlsslon Why LreaLles ln Lhe modern age" When Lhe early Luropeans flrsL began Lo
seLLle ln Lhe easLern parL of norLh Amerlca 8rlLaln recognlzed LhaL Lhose people who were llvlng Lhere
had LlLle Lo land Lhe 8oyal roclamaLlon of 1763 declared LhaL only Lhe 8rlLlsh Crown could acqulre
lands from llrsL naLlons and only by LreaLy ln mosL of Lhe LreaLles aborlglnal people gave up Lhelr LlLle
ln exchange for land reserves and for Lhe rlghL Lo hunL and flsh on Lhe land Lhey'd glven up ln 8C
aborlglnal peoples slgned LreaLles buL Lhey were laLer on exLlngulshed by Lhe uomlnlon of Canada
Cver Lhe decades aborlglnal people proLesLed demandlng LreaLles Lo be slgned 1he demand lnLenslfled
culmlnaLlng ln Lhe formaLlon of Lhe Allled 1rlbes of 8C ln 1916 Lo work for LreaLles ln response CLLawa
amended Lhe lndlan AcL ln 1927 Lo make lL lllegal Lo ralse funds Lo pursue land clalms (whlch was llfLed
only ln 1931) So LreaLles should have been made buL Lhey weren'L lsn'L lL slmply Loo laLe Lo revlslL
Lhls? under s 33 of Lhe ConsLlLuLlon AcL 1982 aborlglnal rlghLs and LreaLy rlghLs are recognlzed and
afflrmed

1he LvoluLlon of Aborlglnal 1lLle Calder declslon recognlzes aborlglnal LlLle (1973) 1he declslon was a
legal Lurnlng polnL 1he recognlLlon of aborlglnal LlLle ln Calder as a legal rlghL was sufflclenL Lo cause Lhe
federal governmenL Lo esLabllsh a land clalms process buL 8C refused Lo parLlclpaLe SLlll Lhe quesLlon
remalned had aborlglnal LlLle been exLlngulshed before 8C [olned ConfederaLlon or noL? ln Sparrow Lhe
CourL Look Lhe same approach as ln Calder who sald LhaL unless leglslaLlon had evlnced a clear and
plaln lnLenLlon" Lo exLlngulsh aborlglnal rlghLs lL dld noL have LhaL effecL 1hls case dealL wlLh parLlcular
aborlglnal rlghLs noL rlghLs ln land 8uL ln uelgamuukw Lhe SCC conflrmed LhaL aborlglnal LlLle exlsLs ln
8C Morever Lhe Marshall and 8ernard declslon seLs llmlLs on aborlglnal LlLle ln Lhe case Lhe CourL
unanlmously dlsmlssed Lhe clalm Lo boLh LreaLy and aborlglnal rlghLs lL found LhaL alLhough Lhe LreaLy
proLecLed Lhe Ml'kmaq rlghLs Lo sell cerLaln producLs Lhls rlghL dld noL exLend Lo commerclal logglng
1he CourL sald LhaL whlle rlghLs are noL frozen ln Llme Lhe proLecLed rlghL musL be a loglcal evoluLlon of
Lhe acLlvlLy carrled on aL Lhe Llme of LreaLymaklng 1reaLles proLecL LradlLlonal acLlvlLles expressed ln a
modern way and ln a modern conLexL new and dlfferenL acLlvlLles are noL proLecLed 1he CourL adopLed
sLrlcL proof of aborlglnal LlLle lL sLaLed LhaL any clalm Lo aborlglnal LlLle would depend on Lhe speclflc
facLs relaLlng Lo Lhe aborlglnal group and lLs hlsLorlcal relaLlonshlp Lo Lhe land ln quesLlon 1radlLlonal
pracLlces musL LranslaLe lnLo a modern legal rlghL and lL ls Lhe Lask of Lhe courL Lo conslder any proper
llmlLaLlons on Lhe modern exerclse of Lhose rlghLs 1he CourL furLher sLaLed LhaL aborlglnal LlLle would
requlre evldence of excluslve and regular use of land for hunLlng flshlng or resource explolLaLlon
Seasonal hunLlng and flshlng ln a parLlcular area amounLed Lo hunLlng or flshlng rlghLs only noL
aborlglnal LlLle

WhaL do Lhese legal declslons mean? 1he courLs have conflrmed LhaL aborlglnal LlLle sLlll exlsLs ln 8C
buL Lhey have noL lndlcaLed where lL exlsLs 1o resolve Lhls slLuaLlon Lhe governmenLs and llrsL naLlons
have Lwo opLlons elLher negoLlaLe land resource governance and [urlsdlcLlon lssues Lhrough a LreaLy
process or go Lo courL and have aborlglnal rlghLs/LlLle declded on a case Lo case basls 1he Palda naLlon
and 1llnglL llrsL naLlon cases provlde guldellnes for Lhe negoLlaLlon and deflnlLlon of aborlglnal LlLle ln
8C ln Mlklsew Lhe SCC exLended Lhe Crown's obllgaLlon Lo consulL and accommodaLe aborlglnal
lnLeresL (esLabllshed ln Palda and 1aku) Lo lnclude exlsLlng LreaLy rlghLs

All of Lhese landmark [udgmenLs LogeLher conflrm LhaL (1) Aborlglnal rlghLs exlsL ln law (2) Aborlglnal
rlghLs are dlsLlncL from Lhe rlghLs of oLher Canadlans (3) 1hey lnclude aborlglnal LlLle whlch ls a unlque
communally held properLy rlghL (4) Aborlglnal rlghLs Lake prlorlLy over Lhe rlghLs of oLhers sub[ecL only
Lo Lhe needs of conservaLlon (3) 1he scope of aborlglnal LlLle and rlghLs depend on speclflc facLs relaLlng
Lo Lhe aborlglnal group and lLs hlsLorlcal relaLlonshlp wlLh Lhe land (6) 1he legal and consLlLuLlonal
sLaLuLe of aborlglnal peoples derlves noL from Lhelr race buL from Lhe facL LhaL Lhey are descendanLs of
Lhe peoples and governlng socleLles LhaL were resldenL ln norLh Amerlca long before seLLlers arrlved (7)
Aborlglnal rlghLs and LlLle cannoL be exLlngulshed by slmple leglslaLlon because Lhey are proLecLed by
Lhe ConsLlLuLlon AcL 1982 (8) CovernmenL has a duLy Lo consulL and posslble accommodaLe aborlglnal
lnLeresL even where LlLle has noL been proven (9) CovernmenL has conLlnulng duLy Lo consulL and
perhaps accommodaLe where LreaLy rlghLs mlghL be adversely affecLed

Aborlglnal 1reaLles

8 v Marshall 8 v 8ernard lAC1S M and 8 were convlcLed of offences relaLed Lo Lhe selllng/possesslon of
Llmber lSSuL WheLher Lhe Ml'kmak people ln nS and n8 have Lhe rlghL Lo log on Crown lands for
commerclal purposes pursuanL Lo elLher LreaLy or Aborlglnal LlLle 8LASCnlnC Aborlglnal LreaLy rlghL
Lhe LesL 1he cases ralse lssue of scope of LreaLy rlghL Crown argues LhaL scope of LreaLy rlghL ls Lo be
deLermlned by whaL Lradlng acLlvlLles were ln Lhe conLemplaLlon of Lhe parLles aL Lhe Llme Lhe LreaLles
were made 1hls ls correcL 8uL LreaLy rlghLs are noL frozen ln Llme Modern peoples do LradlLlonal
Lhlngs ln modern ways 1he quesLlon ls wheLher Lhe modern Lradlng acLlvlLy ln quesLlon represenLs a
loglcal evoluLlon from Lhe LradlLlonal Lradlng acLlvlLy aL Lhe Llme Lhe LreaLy was made" 1hus Lhe
quesLlon ls wheLher Lhe commerclal logglng here aL lssue ls Lhe loglcal evoluLlon of a LradlLlonal
Ml'kmaq Lrade acLlvlLy 1esL applled ln each case Lhe Lrlal [udge concluded LhaL Lhe evldence dld noL
supporL a LreaLy rlghL Lo commerclal logglng ln Marshall Curran rov CL ! found no dlrecL evldence of
any Lrade ln foresL producLs aL Lhe Llme Lhe LreaLles were made ln 8ernard Lordon rov CL ! made
slmllar flndlngs on slmllar evldence l conclude LhaL Lhe evldence supporLs Lhe Lrlal [udges' concluslon
LhaL Lhe commerclal logglng LhaL formed Lhe basls of Lhe charges agalnsL Lhe respondenLs was noL Lhe
loglcal evoluLlon of LradlLlonal Ml'kmaq Lradlng acLlvlLy proLecLed by Lhe LreaLles of 176061 Aborlglnal
LlLle 1he respondenLs also clalm Lhey hold aborlglnal LlLle Lo Lhe lands Lhey logged 1he common law
Lheory underlylng recognlLlon of aborlglnal LlLle holds LhaL an aborlglnal group whlch occupled land aL
Lhe Llme of Luropean soverelgnLy and never ceded or oLherwlse losL lLs rlghL Lo LhaL land conLlnues Lo
en[oy LlLle Lo lL rlor Lo consLlLuLlonallzaLlon of aborlglnal rlghLs ln 1982 aborlglnal LlLle could be
exLlngulshed by clear leglslaLlve acL (see van der eeL) now LhaL ls noL posslble 1he Crown can lmplnge
on aborlglnal LlLle only lf lL can esLabllsh LhaL Lhls ls [usLlfled ln pursuance of a compelllng and subsLanLlal
leglslaLlve ob[ecLlve for Lhe good of larger socleLy 8 v Sparrow) 1hese prlnclples were canvassed aL
lengLh ln uelgamuukw v 8rlLlsh Columbla 1997 3 SC8 1010 whlch enunclaLed a LesL for aborlglnal
LlLle based on excluslve occupaLlon aL Lhe Llme of 8rlLlsh soverelgnLy uelgamuukw requlres LhaL ln
analyzlng a clalm for aborlglnal LlLle Lhe CourL musL conslder boLh Lhe aborlglnal perspecLlve and Lhe
common law perspecLlve Cnly ln Lhls way can Lhe honour of Lhe Crown be upheld A sub lssue here ls
wheLher nomadlc and semlnomadlc peoples can ever clalm LlLle Lo aborlglnal land 1he answer ls LhaL lL
depends on Lhe evldence WheLher a nomadlc people en[oyed sufflclenL physlcal possesslon" Lo glve
Lhem LlLle Lo Lhe land ls a quesLlon of facL PLLu CourL concludes LhaL Lhere ls no ground Lo lnLerfere w/
Lhe Lrlal [udges flndlng LhaL no LlLle exlsLed