Constitutional Law NCA Summary Updated copy PDF

Preview

Summary

TOPIC  1: BASIC  CONCEPTS[1]  Sources  and  Nature  of  the  Constitution: Hogg:  Chapter  1:  Sources Definition - Constitutional  law  is  the  law  prescribing  the  exercise  of  power  by &n...

Description

TOPIC&1:&BASIC&CONCEPTS& [1]&Sources&and&Nature&of&the&Constitution:& Hogg:%Chapter%1:%Sources% Definition% • Constitutional%law%is%the%law%prescribing%the%exercise%of%power%by%the%organs%of%a%State% • It%explains%which%organs%can%exercise%legislative,%executive,%and%judicial%powers% • It%also%prescribes%the%limitations%on%those%powers% • The%rules%of%allocation%powers%in%a%Fed%state%is%a%concern%b/c%federalism%protects%the% cultural,%linguistic%and%regional%diversity%of%the%nation% • Constitutional%law%is%also%concerned%with%civil%liberties%and%it%maintains%or%creates%civil% liberty%by%the%rules%that%limit%the%exercise%of%govt%power%over%individuals% % Constitutionalism% • A%word%used%to%convey%that%idea%that%govt%is%ruled%by%law% • The%word%“rule%of%law”%is%used%to%convey%the%same%idea% • This%describes%a%society%in%which%govt%officials%must%act%in%accordance%with%the%law% • To%uphold%the%RoL,%individuals%must%have%remedies%available%to%them%when%officials%act% outside%the%law%–%this%req’s%judicial%independence% • Laws%that%are%enacted%contrary%to%the%constitution%may%be%struck%down%by%the%courts% • The%rule%of%law%applies%to%Parliament%and%Legislatures%of%the%Prov% • Laws%in%breach%of%the%constitution%may%be%challenged%in%court% % Constitution%Act,%1867% • In%Canada%there%is%no%single%constitutional%document%like%the%US%has% • The%closest%we%have%%to%a%single%document%is%the%British%North%America%Act%(BNA),%1867%–% later%renamed%the%Constitutional%Act,%1867%in%the%year%1982% • BNA%created%a%new%Dominion%of%Canada%by%uniting%three%colonies%of%British%North%America% and%by%providing%the%framework%for%the%admission%of%all%other%BNA%colonies%&%territories% • The%BNA%act%established%the%rules%of%federalism%but%did%not%break%from%its%colonial%past% • The%act%did%no%more%than%was%necessary%to%accomplish%confederation%(not%exhaustive%like% US)% • Preamble:%the%new%nation%was%to%have%“a%Constitution%similar%in%principle%to%that%of%the%UK”% • After%1867,%most%of%constitutional%law%would%be%found%in%a%variety%of%sources% % Gaps%in%the%Act:% • Absence%of%an%amending%clause%meant%the%framers%of%the%Act%were%content%with%the%imperial% Parliament%playing%a%role%in%the%making%of%amendments% • In%1982,%the%new%act%finally%supplied%amending%procedures%% • s9%vests%authority%over%Canada%by%the%Queen’s%representative,%the%Governor%General,%but%the% GG’s%office%is%no%where%created%in%the%Act%–%it%was%assumed%that%this%position%would%be%filled% in%the%same%way%as%the%colonial%governorships%had%always%been%filled,%by%Queen%on%advice%of% PM% • No%mention%of%system%of%responsible%govt%(the%prime%minster,%the%cabinet,%govt’s% dependence%on%a%majority%in%the%House%of%Commons)% • It%did%not%establish%the%Supreme%Court%into%the%act,%although%s101%gave%authority%to%create%it% • Didn’t%create%a%bill%of%rights%and%instead%relied%on%British%common%law% • In%1960%the%Canadian%Bill%of%Rights%was%enacted%as%a%fed%statute%and%finally%added%to% Canada’s%constitutional%law%in%1982%–%the%Canadian%Charter%of%Rights%and%Freedoms% !

% Constitution%Act,%1982%% • 3%Important%repairs%were%made%in%1982,%they%were:! 1) A%domestic%amending%formula%%! 2) The%authority%over%Canada%of%the%UK%Parliament%was%terminated! 3) The%Charter%of%Rights%was%adopted! • But%little%was%accomplished%in%terms%of%accessibility%and%comprehensibility%of%the% constitution! • UK%Parliament%passed%the%Canada%Act,%1982! • It%was%a%short%statute%which%contained%the%charter,%the%amending%formulas! • Neither%act%purported%to%be%a%codification%or%consolidation%of%Canada’s%constitutional% • The%two%acts%only%worsen%the%formal%state%of%constitutional%law%b/c%they%add%two%more statutes%to%a%variety%of%already%existing%sources! • The%Constitutional%Act%1982%does%2%things%which%are%intended%to%effect%some%moderniz and%rationalization%of%Canada’s%constitutional%law! • 1)%the%name%of%the%BNA%act%is%changed%to%the%Constitutional%Act%1867! • 2)%for%the%first%time%a%defining%of%the%phrase%“Constitution%of%Canada’%! % The%Constitution%of%Canada%is%defined%in%s52(2)%of%the%Constitution%Act,%1982%% • s52(2)%The%Constitution%of%Canada%includes:%%(note:%def’n%of%the%Constitution%of%Canada a) The%Canada%Act%1982,%including%this%Act;% b) the%Acts%and%orders%referred%to%in%the%schedule;%and% c) any%amendments%to%any%Act%or%order%referred%to%in%paragraph%(a)%or%(b)% • The%definition%includes%3%categories%of%instruments:% a) The%Canada%Act%1982%which%includes%the%Constitution%Act%1982%in%Schedule%B% b) A%list%of%30%Acts%and%orders%referred%to%in%the%Constitution%Act%1982%which%include Constitution%Act%1867,%it%amendments,%the%Statute%of%Westminster,%etc.% c) Comprises%new%amendments%which%may%in%the%future%be%made%to%any%of%the% instruments%in%the%first%two%categories% • The%Charter%of%Rights%is%part%of%the%Constitution%of%Canada%because%it%is%Part%1%of%the%C 1982! • Health!Services!Bargaining!(2007)%! o the%SCC%held%that%that%a%statue%was%invalid%as%a%breach%of%freedom%of%associat o This%makes%collective%agreement%negotiations%b/t%a%union%and%an%employer%n superior%to%a%statue! • The%def’n%of%the%“constitution%of%Canada”%in%s52(2)%is%introduced%by%the%word%“includes indicate%that%the%def’n%is%not%exhaustive% • The%word%“means”%is%customary%for%an%exhaustive%def’n% • This%was%supported%by%the%SCC%in%the%New!Brunswick!Broadcasting!Co.!v!Nova!Scotia!( o It%held%the%unwritten%doctrine%of%parliamentary%privilege%s/b%included%in%the%s definition%even%though%no%mention%of%it% o The%court’s%decision%means%the%definition%is%capable%of%judicial%expansion% o This%destroys%the%certainty%of%the%list%of%30%instruments%scheduled%to%s52(2)% • Hogg%warns%that%the%courts%should%exercise%caution%and%need%truly%compelling%reasons treat%the%scheduled%list%as%other%than%exhaustive%% • The%new%schedule%omits%the%pre%1867%instruments%which%governed%ON%and%QC%and%Th Royal%Proclamation%1763,%the%Quebec%Act%1774,%the%Constitutional%Act%1791%and%the%Uni Act%1840% • In%O’Donohue!v!The!Queen!(2003)%

it%was%held%that%Canada%could%not%unilaterally%amend%the%rules%of%succession%which% led%Rouleau%J%to%the%conclusion%that%the%Act%of%Settlement,%although%not%scheduled% to%the%Constitution%Act%1982,%was%nonetheless%part%of%the%Constitution% o This%was%the%first%case%where%an%unscheduled%statute%has%been%added%to%the%const% The%Supremacy%Clause%is%52(1)%gThis%makes%the%constitution%the%supreme%law%of%the%country% The%Entrenchment%clauseg%52(3)%g%This%entrenched%the%Constitutions%Act%1982%and%makes%it% only%amendable%by%the%proscribed%procedure%in%the%Act% Hogg%says%the%biggest%disadvantage%of%not%having%a%single%constitutional%document%is%that% the%rules%are%not%readily%accessible%to%nonglawyers% o

• • •

% Imperial%Statutes% • They%are%statutes%enacted%for%Canada%by%the%UK%ie%(CA%1867%and%1982)% • They%are%the%two%most%important%statues%w/%respect%to%the%constitution% • There%are%also%17%other%imperial%statutes%w/in%the%def’n%of%the%constitution% • Imperial%statutes%are%no%longer%part%of%the%constitution%of%Canada%and%are%not%supreme%over% the%statutes%enacted%by%the%Canadian%parliament% • The%imperial%statues%that%are%part%of%the%constitution%of%Canada%are%supreme%over%other%laws% and%can%only%be%amended%or%repealed%w/%accordance%to%the%amending%procedures%in%Part%V% % Canadian%Statutes% • 8%Cdn%statutes%form%the%def’n%of%the%“Constitution%of%Canada”%in%s52(2)% • They%were%enacted%by%Parliament%in%the%ordinary%way,%but%they%are%now%supreme%over%other% fed%statutes%by%virtue%of%s52(1)%CA,%1982%and%are%entrenched%by%virtue%of%s52(3)%CA%1982% • There%are%other%statutes%that%are%constitutional%in%nature,%but%were%not%included%in%the%def’n% s52(2)%–%ie.%Bill%of%Rights%1960% • These%statutes%can%be%repealed%or%amended%by%ordinary%legislation% % Parliamentary%Privileges% • The%fed%Houses%of%Parliament%and%the%provincial%legislative%assemblies%possess%a%set%of% powers%and%privileges%that%are%“necessary%to%their%capacity%to%function%as%legislative%bodies”% • This%was%supported%by%the%SCC%in%New!Brunswick!Broadcasting!Co.!v!Nova!Scotia!(1993)! where%the%legislative%assembly%could%ban%the%televising%of%its%proceedings,%b/c%the%power%to% exclude%“strangers”%was%part%of%the%assembly’s%privilege% • In%Canada!v!Vaid!(2005)%it%was%argued%that%the%hiring%and%firing%of%all%House%employees%was% an%“internal%affair”%and%were%not%subject%to%review%by%any%court%or%tribunal% o The%SCC%rejected%this%and%held%that%such%a%sweeping%claim%of%parliamentary% privilege%failed%the%test%of%necessity% • Parliamentary%privileges%could%be%regarded%as%a%branch%of%the%common%law%in%that%it%is%not% contained%in%any%statute%or%other%written%instrument%and%it%is%the%courts%who%determine%its% existence%and%extent% • 2%peculiar%characteristics%of%Parliamentary%Privileges%stated%by%the%SCC%%in%New!Brunswick! Broadcasting!Co.!v!Nova!Scotia!(1993)!% o 1)%It%is%part%of%the%Constitution%of%Canada%% o 2)%The%powers%authorized%by%parliamentary%privilege%are%not%subject%to%the%Charter% o Therefore,%in%this%case,%there%was%no%need%for%the%court%to%determine%whether%the% assembly’s%denial%of%access%to%the%television%media%was%a%breach%of%the%freedom%of% press%guaranteed%by%s2(b)%of%the%Charter% o This%immunity%distinguishes%parliamentary%privilege%from%the%royal%prerogative% and%other%common%law%powers%of%govt%which%must%adhere%to%the%Charter!% !

•

It%seems%that%there%is%no%difference%in%constitutional%status%b/t%legislative%privilege%and inherit%privilege%as%both%are%exempt%from%the%Charter%

% Case%Law% • Case%law%creates%precedents%that%elaborate%or%modify%the%original%text%of%an%act% • It%would%be%unthinkable%to%ascertain%the%relevant%rules%by%recourse%to%an%Act%alone% • The%Charter%has%attracted%a%vast%case%law% • The%SCC%has%not%hesitated%in%finding%unwritten%principles%underlying%the%text%of%the% Constitution%Act%1867%and%1982% • Ie.%in%Re!Remuneration!of!Judges!(1997),%the%SCC%held%that%there%was%an%unwritten%prin of%judicial%independence%in%the%Constitution%of%Canada% • In%the%Secession!Reference!(1998)%the%SCC%invoked%the%unwritten%principles%of%democra federalism,%constitutionalism%and%the%protection%of%minorities%to%hold%that,%if%a%prov%w decide%in%a%referendum%that%it%wanted%to%secede%from%Canada,%the%fed%govt%and%the%oth provs%would%come%under%a%legal%duty%to%enter%into%negotiations%to%accomplish%the%sece • These%cases%raise%some%concern%that%the%Court%is%trespassing%into%fields%more%properly the%legislative%and%executive%branches%of%govt%(a%theme%throughout%this%book)% % Prerogative% • The%royal%prerogative%consists%of%powers%and%privileges%accorded%by%the%CL%to%the%Crow • The%prerogative%is%a%branch%of%the%CL,%b/c%it%is%the%decision%of%the%courts%which%have% determined%its%existence%and%extent% • The%prerogative%powers%are%those%that%are%unique%to%the%Crown% • Over%the%years%these%powers%have%been%narrowed%to%encompass%the%conduct%of%foreign affairs,%including%the%making%of%treaties%and%the%declaring%of%war,%appointing%the%PM%a other%ministers,%the%issue%of%passports,%the%creation%of%Indian%reserves,%and%the%conferr honours%such%as%Queen’s%Counsel% • These%powers%are%subject%to%JR% • The%exercise%of%the%Crown’s%prerogative%powers%are%regulated%by%convention,%not%law% % Conventions%% Definition! • Conventions%are%rules%of%the%constitution%that%are%not%enforced%by%the%law%courts% • nonglegal%rules,%but%b/c%they%regulate%the%working%of%the%constitution,%they%are%import • They%prescribe%the%way%in%which%legal%powers%shall%be%exercised% • Where%there%is%a%breach%of%a%convention%and%no%breach%of%law%has%occurred,%there%will% legal%remedy%available% % Convention!in!Courts! • although%not%enforced%by%courts,%the%existence%of%a%convention%has%occasionally%been% recognized%by%the%courts% • ieg%Liverside!v!Anderson![1942]%%conventions%of%responsible%govt%which%make%a%minster accountable%to%Parliament%as%a%consideration%in%deciding%to%give%a%broad%rather%than%n interpretation%to%a%statue%conferring%power%on%a%Minster% • Patriation!Reference!(1981)S%SCC%was%asked%whether%there%was%a%legal%req’%that%the%con the%provs%be%obtained%before%the%fed%govt%requested%the%UK%to%enact%an%amendment%to const%of%Canada%that%would%affect%the%provs% • The%court%held%there%was%no%legal%req’,%but%they%also%recognized%that%there%was%a%conve that%req’d%the%Fed%govt%to%obtain%a%“substantial%degree”%of%provincial%consent%

• • • • •

• •

As%a%matter%of%politics,%the%decision%made%it%impossible%to%proceed%w/o%substantial%consent% After%this%decision%the%Canada%Act%1982%was%passed%by%the%UK% After%the%decision%there%was%doubt%as%to%whether%the%rule%of%“substantial%degree”%had%been% satisfied%b/c%Quebec%had%not%agreed%(25%%of%population)%but%10%other%provs%did%agree% Quebec!Veto!Reference%(1982)%the%SCC%answered%that%Quebec’s%consent%was%not%necessary% Was%the%SCC%wrong%to%answer%the%question?% o The%courts%have%the%discretion%not%to%answer%a%question%% o Was%the%question%suitable%for%judicial%determination?% o The%only%effect%of%answering%the%question%was%to%influence%the%outcome%of%the% political%negotiations%over%the%1981g82%constitutional%settlement% Hogg%believes%the%court%should%have%been%confined%to%answer%the%legal%question% They%should%not%have%gone%beyond%to%exert%further%influence%over%the%negotiations%

% Convention!and!Usage! • A%convention%is%a%rule%which%is%regarded%obligatory%by%the%officials%to%whom%it%applies% • A%“usage”%is%not%a%rule,%but%merely%a%governmental%practice%which%is%ordinarily%followed,% although%it%is%not%req’d%as%obligatory% • ie%of%Usage%g%the%practice%of%appointing%to%the%position%of%Chief%Justice%of%Canada%the%person% who%is%the%senior%puisne%judge%of%the%SCC%at%the%time%of%the%vacancy% • This%practice%has%been%departed%with%the%appointment%of%McLachlin%in%2000% • A%“usage”%may%develop%into%a%convention%if%a%practice%is%followed%invariably%over%a%long% period% • The%process%of%evolution%from%usage%to%convention%may%be%called%a%“custom”% • A%convention%is%as%unenforceable%as%a%usage% • There%is%a%strong%moral%obligation%to%follow%a%convention%than%a%usage%and%departure%from%a% convention%will%be%criticised%more% • Patriation!Reference!(!1981)%–%the%court%decided%whether%the%past%practice%of%obtaining% provincial%consent%to%constitutional%amendments%was%a%usage%or%a%convention% % Convention!in!Agreement! • A%convention%can%be%established%by%all%relevant%officials%agreeing%to%adopt%a%certain%rule%of% constitutional%conduct% • Ie.%1930%when%the%PM%of%the%selfggoverning%dominions%of%the%Commonwealth%agreed%that% the%King%would%appoint%the%GG%of%a%dominion%solely%on%the%advice%of%the%govt%of%the% dominion% % Convention!and!Law! • A%convention%could%be%transformed%into%law%by%being%enacted%as%a%statue% • A%convention%would%also%be%transformed%into%law%if%it%is%enforced%by%the%courts% • If%a%court%did%enforce%a%convention%(and%admittedly%no%court%has%ever%done%so),%the% convention%would%be%transformed%into%a%legal%rule% • Why%do%people%obey%them%if%not%law?%% • The%breach%of%a%convention%would%result%in%serious%political%repercussions%and%eventual% changes%in%law% • Conventions%allow%the%law%to%adapt%to%changing%political%realities%w/o%the%necessity%for% formal%amendment% % Convention!and!Policy! !

Public!School!Boards!Assn!v!Alta.![2000}!&!English!Catholic!Teachers!Case!v!Ont![2001]S public%school%supporters%argued%that%prov%educational%statues%violated%a%constitutiona convention% • Heldg%in%both%cases%that%no%convention%restricted%the%policy%or%substance%%of%what%cou enacted%by%the%prov%Legislature%in%exercise%in%its%power%to%make%laws%in%relation%to% education% • Conventions%affected%only%the%structure%of%govt%power,%not%the%polices%to%which%govt%p was%addressed% %% Reference!re!Secession!of!Quebec,%[1998]!2!S.C.R.!217%%% • Constitutionality%of%unilateral%separation%of%Quebec%% • Held%that%Quebec%cannot%secede%from%Canada%unilaterally% • The%SCC%invoked%unwritten%principles%of%democracy,%federalism,%constitutionalism%and protection%of%minorities%to%hold%that,%if%a%prov%were%to%decide%in%a%referendum%that%it%w to%succeed%from%Canada,%the%fed%govt%and%other%provs%would%come%under%a%legal%duty%t enter%into%negotiations%to%accomplish%the%secessions% • This%illustrates%the%active%and%creative%role%that%the%modern%SCC%has%carved%out%for%its • •

[2]&Am

• • • • •

• •

& % % Prior%to%1982,%there%were%no%amendment%procedures%laid%out%in%the%CA%1867% Amendments%could%only%be%made%through%the%imperial%parliament%

Part%V%of%the%Consti%Act%1982%is%headed%

1.

% A%general%amending%procedure%(s38)%for%amendments%not%otherwise%provided%for%(as%w

2.

A%

;% %

% There%was%a%convention%in%place%since%1895%where%a%request%could%be%made%by%Canada%to%the% UK%govt%to%amend%the%Act%(“joint%address”%by%the%House%of%Commons%and%the%Senate)% The )% o % o A%“substantial%degree”%of%provincial%consent%was%req’d%as%a%matter%of%convention% o After%this%decision%an%agreement%was%made%b/t%the%PM%and%9%out%of%10%provs%on%the% wording%of%the%amendments%(it%excluded%Quebec)% o These%were%passed%by%the%UK%Parliament%as%the%Canada%Act%1982% The% % The%role%of%the%UK%parliament%has%been%eliminated%and%the%Act%formally%terminates%the%

% The!Search!for!a!Domestic!Amending!Procedure% • There%were% %at%creating%amending%procedure% • %(both%gave%Quebec%a%permanent%veto%power)% • Again%in%1981%an%agreement%was%nearly%reached%but%Quebec%did%not%agree%in%the%end% • The% % ,%and%probably%not%req’d%by%convention%either% % The!Failure!to!Accommodate!Quebec% • The%new% % • The%Charter%restricted%the%powers%of%provincial%legislatures,%particularly%the%Quebec% National%Assembly,%to%implement%Frenchglanguage%policy% • In%1980%there%was%a%referendum%on%sovereignty%association%and%the%fed%govt%promised%that%if% Quebecers%voted%“no”%the%situation%would%not%remain%as%the%status%quo%as%the%referendum% would%be%followed%by%constitutional%change%to%better%accommodate%Quebec’s%aspirations% • The% % • % % o They%introduced%s33%into%each%of%its%existing%statutes%and%into%every%new%statute% • There%were%a%couple%of%failed%attempts%at%reconciliation% • In%1995%Parti%Québécois%held%a%referendum%that%was%defeated%by%50.6%%to%49.4%% • The% %reacted%with%two%measures% o % % • There%was%little%support%for%these%measures% % % % % Part%V%of%the%Constitution%Act,%1982% Summary!of!Part!V% !

•

3. 4.

,% A%somegbutgnotgall%provs%procedure%(s43),%for%amendment%of%provisions%and%only%thos provs%affected;% The%fed%Parliament%alone%(s44)%has%power%to%amend%provisions%relating%to%the%fed%exec and%House%of%Parliament;%and% Each%Provincial%Legislature%alone%(s45)%has%power%to%amend%“the%constitution%of%the%pr

5. % Comparison!w/!Australia!and!US% • Australia%–%amendments%req’%approval%by%a%simple%majority%in%both%Houses%followed%by popular%referendum%in%which%the%amendments%is%approved%by%a%“double%majority”%–%(1) national%majority%and%(2)%a%state%majority%in%a%majority%of%states%(that%is%4%of%6%states)% rd • US%–%req’s%approval%by%2/3 %majority%in%both%Houses%followed%by%ratification%by%the% Legislatures%of%¾%of%the%states%(has%only%been%used%once)% % Constitution!of!Canada% • % • The%Constitution%of%Canada%does%not%include:% o The%Royal%Style%and%Titles%Act% o Governor%General’s%Act% o Official%Languages%Act%(even%though%the%use%of%Eng%or%French%lang%is%one%of%t topics%listed%in%s41%as%req’%unanimity%procedure”% o The%Supreme%Court%of%Canada%Act% • These%acts%can%be%amended%by%ordinary%legislation% % Charter!of!Rights% • The%Charter%does%not%apply%to%the%general%amending%procedure%(s38),%the%unanimity%

• %

harter% It%has%therefore%been%held%that%provincial%laws%respecting%electoral%districts%and% qualifications%of%candidates%for%election,%are%subject%to%the%Charter%

a)

General%Amending%Procedure%(s38)% s38(1)!–!The!7/50!formula!–!has!only!been!used!once% • This%procedure%applies%when%none%of%the%4%specific%procedures%apply%(ss41,%43,%44%&%45)% An%amendment%to%the%Constitution%of%Canada%may%be%made%by%proclamation%issued%by%the%GG%under% the%Great%Seal%of%Canada%where%so%authorized%by:% a) Resolutions%of%the%Senate%and%HofC;%and% rd b) ...