2019•SSRN Electronic JournalOpen access

The Role of Constitutional Courts, A Comparative Perspective: The Supreme Court of Canada

Johanne Poirier

Open full text 1 citations

Abstract

This study is part of a wider project investigating, from a comparative law perspective, the role of constitutional courts of different states. This article examines Canada’s highest court, the Supreme Court. Canada practices a form of “decentralized” constitutional review. Basically all administrative tribunals and courts of justice in Canada have jurisdiction to decide constitutional matters. In a sense, all Canadian judges are constitutional judges. Yet the Supreme Court of Canada, sitting at the apex of the judicial hierarchy, is uniquely positioned to shape the development of constitutional law. It is the ultimate arbiter of the Constitution and has the final word with respect to constitutional interpretation. It thus plays a central role in Canada’s federal democracy. The report is divided into eight (8) sections and follows the general outline developed in the context of the comparative exercise designed by the Comparative Law Library Unit of the European Parliament. Section I offers a brief introduction and history of the Supreme Court. Section II discusses the composition of the Court as well as mechanisms by which judges may be removed from the bench. Section III deals with the principle of judicial independence and sketches the Court’s organization. Section IV outlines the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction, particularly in constitutional matters. Section V addresses the issue of ‘standing’ and of the actors who may seize the Court. Section VI describes the procedures applicable both in appeal and in the context of the Court’s advisory opinion role. Section VII analyses the effect and execution of judgments. Finally, Section VIII offers summary conclusions, underscoring the remarkable degree of legitimacy enjoyed by the Supreme Court of Canada, despite significant challenges in terms of access to justice, given the tremendous cost of bringing a case to the Court. This study is available on the European Parliamentary Research Service's website.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

This study is part of a wider project investigating, from a comparative law perspective, the role of constitutional courts of different states. This article examines Canada’s highest court, the Supreme Court. Canada practices a form of “decentralized” constitutional review. Basically all administrative tribunals and courts of justice in Canada have jurisdiction to decide constitutional matters. In a sense, all Canadian judges are constitutional judges. Yet the Supreme Court of Canada, sitting at the apex of the judicial hierarchy, is uniquely positioned to shape the development of constitutional law. It is the ultimate arbiter of the Constitution and has the final word with respect to constitutional interpretation. It thus plays a central role in Canada’s federal democracy. The report is divided into eight (8) sections and follows the general outline developed in the context of the comparative exercise designed by the Comparative Law Library Unit of the European Parliament. Section I offers a brief introduction and history of the Supreme Court. Section II discusses the composition of the Court as well as mechanisms by which judges may be removed from the bench. Section III deals with the principle of judicial independence and sketches the Court’s organization. Section IV outlines the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction, particularly in constitutional matters. Section V addresses the issue of ‘standing’ and of the actors who may seize the Court. Section VI describes the procedures applicable both in appeal and in the context of the Court’s advisory opinion role. Section VII analyses the effect and execution of judgments. Finally, Section VIII offers summary conclusions, underscoring the remarkable degree of legitimacy enjoyed by the Supreme Court of Canada, despite significant challenges in terms of access to justice, given the tremendous cost of bringing a case to the Court. This study is available on the European Parliamentary Research Service's website.

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

This study is part of a wider project investigating, from a comparative law perspective, the role of constitutional courts of different states. This article examines Canada’s highest court, the Supreme Court. Canada practices a form of “decentralized” constitutional review. Basically all administrative tribunals and courts of justice in Canada have jurisdiction to decide constitutional matters. In a sense, all Canadian judges are constitutional judges. Yet the Supreme Court of Canada, sitting at the apex of the judicial hierarchy, is uniquely positioned to shape the development of constitutional law. It is the ultimate arbiter of the Constitution and has the final word with respect to constitutional interpretation. It thus plays a central role in Canada’s federal democracy. The report is divided into eight (8) sections and follows the general outline developed in the context of the comparative exercise designed by the Comparative Law Library Unit of the European Parliament. Section I offers a brief introduction and history of the Supreme Court. Section II discusses the composition of the Court as well as mechanisms by which judges may be removed from the bench. Section III deals with the principle of judicial independence and sketches the Court’s organization. Section IV outlines the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction, particularly in constitutional matters. Section V addresses the issue of ‘standing’ and of the actors who may seize the Court. Section VI describes the procedures applicable both in appeal and in the context of the Court’s advisory opinion role. Section VII analyses the effect and execution of judgments. Finally, Section VIII offers summary conclusions, underscoring the remarkable degree of legitimacy enjoyed by the Supreme Court of Canada, despite significant challenges in terms of access to justice, given the tremendous cost of bringing a case to the Court. This study is available on the European Parliamentary Research Service's website.

Key concepts: Supreme court, Law, Original jurisdiction, Political science, Certiorari, Court of record, Jurisdiction, Judicial independence

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
The Role of Constitutional Courts, A Comparative Perspective: The Supreme Court of Canada — Research Paper | ScholarLens