1979•The Canadian Bar ReviewOpen access

A CONSTITUTIONALLY GUARANTEED ROLE FOR THE COURTS

David Phillip Jones

Open full text 1 citations

Abstract

Although the BNA Act provides the basis for most Canadian judicial institutions, the author notes that it does not articulate the courts’ governing principles, jurisdiction or relationships to Parliament and provincial legislatures. In particular, it fails to provide any broad acknowledgment of the Rule of Law or the independence of the judiciary as constitutional values. The discussion examines several issues relating to the jurisdiction of the courts that must be addressed in formulating a new constitution, namely 1) explicit constitutional jurisdiction for the Supreme Court of Canada, 2) a Bill of Rights enforceable through the courts, 3) judicial review of administrative actions, 4) amendment of section 96 and limits on delegation to administrative bodies, and 5) specified jurisdiction to settle private disputes between citizens. The author evaluates five proposals relating to the status of the courts in the context of constitutional reform, ranging from a government bill to the recommendations of the Pepin-Robarts Task Force of 1977, and concludes that the proposal of the Canadian Bar Association comes closest to capturing the importance of the Rule of Law and the role of the courts.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Although the BNA Act provides the basis for most Canadian judicial institutions, the author notes that it does not articulate the courts’ governing principles, jurisdiction or relationships to Parliament and provincial legislatures. In particular, it fails to provide any broad acknowledgment of the Rule of Law or the independence of the judiciary as constitutional values. The discussion examines several issues relating to the jurisdiction of the courts that must be addressed in formulating a new constitution, namely 1) explicit constitutional jurisdiction for the Supreme Court of Canada, 2) a Bill of Rights enforceable through the courts, 3) judicial review of administrative actions, 4) amendment of section 96 and limits on delegation to administrative bodies, and 5) specified jurisdiction to settle private disputes between citizens. The author evaluates five proposals relating to the status of the courts in the context of constitutional reform, ranging from a government bill to the recommendations of the Pepin-Robarts Task Force of 1977, and concludes that the proposal of the Canadian Bar Association comes closest to capturing the importance of the Rule of Law and the role of the courts.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 1 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

Although the BNA Act provides the basis for most Canadian judicial institutions, the author notes that it does not articulate the courts’ governing principles, jurisdiction or relationships to Parliament and provincial legislatures. In particular, it fails to provide any broad acknowledgment of the Rule of Law or the independence of the judiciary as constitutional values. The discussion examines several issues relating to the jurisdiction of the courts that must be addressed in formulating a new constitution, namely 1) explicit constitutional jurisdiction for the Supreme Court of Canada, 2) a Bill of Rights enforceable through the courts, 3) judicial review of administrative actions, 4) amendment of section 96 and limits on delegation to administrative bodies, and 5) specified jurisdiction to settle private disputes between citizens. The author evaluates five proposals relating to the status of the courts in the context of constitutional reform, ranging from a government bill to the recommendations of the Pepin-Robarts Task Force of 1977, and concludes that the proposal of the Canadian Bar Association comes closest to capturing the importance of the Rule of Law and the role of the courts.

Key concepts: Jurisdiction, Law, Judicial independence, Political science, Constitution, Judicial review, Supreme court, Legislature

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
A CONSTITUTIONALLY GUARANTEED ROLE FOR THE COURTS — Research Paper | ScholarLens