General Legitimacy of Judicial Review and the Fundamental Basis of Constitutional Law

Four questions dominate normative contemporary constitutional theroy: What is the purpose of a constitution? What makes a constitution legitimate? What kinds of arguments are legitimate within the process of constitutional interpretation? What can make judicial review of legislation legitimate in principle? The main purpose of this text is to provide one general answer to the last question. The secondary purpose is to show how this answer may bear upon our understanding of the fundamental basis of constitutional law. These two purposes should suggest particular answers to the first three questions.

Surveillance électronique et métadonnées : vers une nouvelle conception constitutionnelle du droit à la vie privée au Canada?

Ce mémoire traite de la portée de la protection constitutionnelle du droit à la vie privée informationnelle au Canada, au regard de la surveillance électronique gouvernementale à grande échelle des métadonnées des communications électroniques, à des fins de sécurité nationale. Il est soutenu, après une présentation de l’importance démocratique de la vie privée, de même que de la nature et de la portée de certaines activités gouvernementales de surveillance électronique, que le cadre d’analyse du « Biographical core », qui conditionne l’étendue de la protection de la vie privée informationnelle en droit constitutionnel canadien, est susceptible d’inclure les métadonnées des communications électroniques. Cette position est appuyée par un argumentaire juridique fondé sur les règles d’interprétation et la jurisprudence constitutionnelle pertinente. Cet argumentaire se trouve renforcé par potentiel considérablement révélateur des métadonnées, des particularités propres aux activités de surveillance électronique analysées, ainsi que des implications non-juridiques soulevées par ces dernières.

Parliamentary Debates in Statutory Interpretation: A Question of Admissibility or of Weight?

The article was first published in the McGill Law Journal. Un résumé en français est disponible.

Driedger's 'Modern Principle' at the Supreme Court of Canada: Interpretation, Justification, Legitimization

Un résumé en français est également disponible

Regulatory History Material as an Extrinsic Aid to Interpretation: An Empirical Study on the Use of RIAS by the Federal Court of Canada

Since 1986, the Canadian Public Administration is required to analyze the socio-economic impact of new regulatory requirements or regulatory changes. To report on its analysis, a Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement (RIAS) is produced and published in the Canada Gazette with the proposed regulation to which it pertains for notice to, and comments by, interested parties. After the allocated time for comments has elapsed, the regulation is adopted with a final version of the RIAS. Both documents are again published in the Canada Gazette. As a result, the RIAS acquires the status of an official public document of the Government of Canada and its content can be argued in courts as an extrinsic aid to the interpretation of a regulation. In this paper, an analysis of empirical findings on the uses of this interpretative tool by the Federal Court of Canada is made. A sample of decisions classified as unorthodox show that judges are making determinations on the basis of two distinct sets of arguments built from the information found in a RIAS and which the author calls “technocratic” and “democratic”. The author argues that these uses raise the general question of “What makes law possible in our contemporary legal systems”? for they underline enduring legal problems pertaining to the knowledge and the acceptance of the law by the governed. She concludes that this new interpretive trend of making technocratic and democratic uses of a RIAS in case law should be monitored closely as it may signal a greater change than foreseen, and perhaps an unwanted one, regarding the relationship between the government and the judiciary.

Canada’s Unfathomable Unwritten Constitutional Principles

Since the advent of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982, Canadians courts have become bolder in the law-making entreprise, and have recently resorted to unwritten constitutional principles in an unprecedented fashion. In 1997, in Reference re Remuneration of Judges of the Provincial Court of Prince Edward Island, the Supreme Court of Canada found constitutional justification for the independence of provincially appointed judges in the underlying, unwritten principles of the Canadian Constitution. In 1998, in Reference re Secession of Quebec, the Court went even further in articulating those principles, and held that they have a substantive content which imposes significant limitations on government action. The author considers what the courts' recourse to unwritten principles means for the administrative process. More specifically, he looks at two important areas of uncertainty relating to those principles: their ambiguous normative force and their interrelatedness. He goes on to question the legitimacy of judicial review based on unwritten constitutional principles, and to critize the courts'recourse to such principles in decisions applying the principle of judicial independence to the issue of the remuneration of judges.

The Supreme Court’s Understanding of Federalism: Efficiency at the Expense of Diversity

This paper is an examination of the Supreme Court of Canada's interpretation of federalism since constitutional repatriation in 1982. It argues that the lure of centralist efficiency is overpowering a fundamentally important part of our federal order: regionalism. The author contends that changes made by the Court to certain fundamental concepts of Canadian constitutional law now provide Parliament with greater latitude than before in the exercise of its legislative powers. According to the author, these changes are disturbing because they are structured so as to preclude consideration of the legitimate concerns of regional polities. Furthermore, he argues that the Court has reinforced the central government's power to regulate the economy, including intraprovincial matters affecting trade, by resorting to highly functional tests that emphasize economic efficiency over other criteria. This, he claims, makes it more difficult to invoke legitimate regional interests that would lead to duplication, overlapping and even, in the eyes of some, inefficiency. The author the focuses on the Court's treatment of environmental protection in an attempt to show the tension between the Court's desire to use a functional approach and the need to recognize regional interests. Finally, through an examination of recent case law, he attemps to demonstrate that the Court's dominant perspective remains functional despite its endorsement of a more community-oriented undestanding of federalism in Secession Reference. If the Court chooses to proceed in this manner, it will alienate regional polities and may encourage them to choose more radical means of asserting their differences. Further, the author argues that strict adherence to the functional effectiveness approach will undermine the very values that federalism is meant to promote.

National Application of International Law: The Statutory Interpretation Perspective

Reprinted with permission of the Publisher from The Canadian Yearbook of Internation Law, 41 by Don McRae © University of British Columbia Press 2003. All rights reserved.

Juger les lois la légitimité démocratique et la fonction du contrôle judiciaire de constitutionnalité

"Thèse présentée à la Faculté des études supérieures en vue de l'obtention du grade de doctorat en droit (LL.D.)"

De la question de la légitimité du projet de traité établissant une Constitution pour l'Europe à celle de la légitimité des juges

"Mémoire présenté à la Faculté des études supérieures en vue de l'obtention du grade de Maîtrise en droit (L.L.M.)"

Reforming the Division of Powers in Canada : An (Un)achievable Endeavour?

Formal amendments to the division of powers provisions of Canada's 1867 federal constitution have always proved difficult to achieve. However, since 1982, this task has become hopelessly unachievable. Modifications to, and adaptation of, the division of power has consequently been left to judges called upon to interpret sections 91 to 95 of the Constitution Act, 1867, and to executives officers of the central and regional governments as they negotiate intergovernmental agreements. The end result of theses two processes has been highly favourable to the central government. Courts have given a liberal interpretation to the central government's exclusive fields of jurisdiction. Moreover, the latter's spending power, unobstructed by the fragile legal framwork imposed under interprovincial agreements, has enabled it to encroach upon the exclusive heads of power of the provinces. As we will see, one of the main reason behind the Canadian constitutional stalemate, and for the recurrent isolation of Quebec - even where informal modification are concerned - is the different conceptions of Canadian federalism respectively held by Quebecers and by English Canadian.