Between Principle and Practicality: A Dynamic Realist Examination of Independence in the Canadian Justice System

This work examines independence in the Canadian justice system using an approach adapted from new legal realist scholarship called ‘dynamic realism’. This approach proposes that issues in law must be considered in relation to their recursive and simultaneous development with historic, social and political events. Such events describe ‘law in action’ and more holistically demonstrate principles like independence, rule of law and access to justice. My dynamic realist analysis of independence in the justice system employs a range methodological tools and approaches from the social sciences, including: historical and historiographical study; public administrative; policy and institutional analysis; an empirical component; as well as constitutional, statutory interpretation and jurisprudential analysis. In my view, principles like independence represent aspirational ideals in law which can be better understood by examining how they manifest in legal culture and in the legal system. This examination focuses on the principle and practice of independence for both lawyers and judges in the justice system, but highlights the independence of the Bar. It considers the inter-relation between lawyer independence and the ongoing refinement of judicial independence in Canadian law. It also considers both independence of the Bar and the Judiciary in the context of the administration of justice, and practically illustrates the interaction between these principles through a case study of a specific aspect of the court system. This work also focuses on recent developments in the principle of Bar independence and its relation to an emerging school of professionalism scholarship in Canada. The work concludes by describing the principle of independence as both conditional and dynamic, but rooted in a unitary concept for both lawyers and judges. In short, independence can be defined as impartiality, neutrality and autonomy of legal decision-makers in the justice system to apply, protect and improve the law for what has become its primary normative purpose: facilitating access to justice. While both independence of the Bar and the Judiciary are required to support access to independent courts, some recent developments suggest the practical interactions between independence and access need to be the subject of further research, to better account for both the principles and the practicalities of the Canadian justice system.

The Evolution and Reform of Summary Trials in Canadian Military Justice

There is a place where a Canadian citizen can be sent to 30 days detention, by someone who is not a judge, without being represented by counsel, and without having a meaningful right to appeal. It is the summary trial system of the Canadian Armed Forces. This thesis analyses that system and suggests reforms. It is aimed at those who have an interest in improving the administration of military justice at the unit level but want to sufficiently understand the issues before doing so. Through a classic legal approach with elements of legal history and comparative law, this study begins by setting military justice in the Canadian legal firmament. The introductory chapter also explains fundamental concepts, first and foremost the broader notion of discipline, for which summary trial is one of the last maintaining tools. Chapter II describes the current system. An overview of its historical background is first given. Then, each procedural step is demystified, from investigation until review. Chapter III identifies potential breaches of the Charter, highlighting those that put the system at greater constitutional risk: the lack of judicial independence, the absence of hearing transcript, the lack of legal representation and the disparity of treatment between ranks. Alternatives adopted in the Canadian Armed Forces and in foreign jurisdictions, from both common law and civil law traditions, in addressing similar challenges are reviewed in Chapter IV. Chapter V analyses whether the breaches could nevertheless be justified in a free and democratic society. Its conclusion is that, considering the availability of reasonable alternatives, it would be hard to convince a court that the current system is a legitimate impairment of the individual’s legal rights. The conclusion Chapter presents options to address current challenges. First, the approach of ‘depenalization’ taken by the Government in recent Bill C-71 is analysed and criticised. The ‘judicialization’ approach is advocated through a series of 16 recommendations designed not only to strengthen the constitutionality of the system but also to improve the administration of military justice in furtherance of service members’ legal rights.