[ql06] PUBLIC:Do we want judges with more muscle? Yes

  • From: Sheldon Erentzen <sheldon.erentzen@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: QL'06 newslist <ql06@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 16:29:10 -0500

This is the pro side of the debate that Stan mentioned in class today. 
It's pretty straight forward but after reading this and the next posting 
of the con side, I'd enjoy a debate over this issue.


Do we want judges with more muscle?

YES: Judges' decisions mean zip unless they're implemented. It's a 
principle as old as common law,
says KENT ROACH

Thursday, Nov. 13, 2003

Globe and Mail

Critics of judicial activism have eagerly grabbed hold of the Supreme 
Court's Nova Social school decision as yet another example of the 
Americanizing influence of Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms and 
the new and dangerous powers it gives judges. They should read both the 
Charter and the decision more closely.

Section 23 of the Charter clearly grants the francophone minority in 
Nova Scotia positive rights to minority-language education. Section 24 
clearly allows courts to devise remedies they consider appropriate and 
just: Language that even the most conservative judges recognized in 1986 
gives superior courts a wide and unfettered discretion to fashion novel 
remedies for Charter violations.

The Charter became law more than 21 years ago. Opponents of the Charter 
should get over it.

They should also read the case more carefully. The trial judge, faced 
with a dynamic, complex situation involving five Nova Scotia regions, 
did not rush in with a detailed injunction telling the government 
exactly how to provide minority-language instruction and facilities. He 
proceeded cautiously, requiring the government to make best efforts to 
meet certain goals by certain dates and to report to him about progress 
and unanticipated problems. This was a far cry from the detailed busing 
orders that U.S. judges have used to desegregate schools.

The majority of the court commented at length about the need for courts 
not to "usurp the role of the other branches of governance by taking on 
tasks to which other persons or bodies are better suited," and "to 
respect the relationships with, and separation of, functions among the 
legislature, the executive and the judiciary." If anyone deserves to be 
criticized as U.S.-style remedial activists, it is the dissenting 
judges. They seemed to want to force the trial judge to issue either a 
declaration with no follow-up enforcement powers -- or a detailed 
injunction that would have placed the Minister of Education in jeopardy 
of being fined or imprisoned for contempt. The majority of the Supreme 
Court approved of a half-way house between these two extremes, allowing 
the trial judge to oversee the steps that the government selected to 
comply with the judgment, and ensuring that Nova Scotia francophones 
would have continued access to the trial judge without having to raise 
the stakes by contempt charges.

The dissenters also downplayed the fact that since the 1985 Manitoba 
Language Reference, Canadian courts often retained jurisdiction in 
constitutional cases to allow the government to decide on appropriate 
compliance and ways of ensuring respect for the rule of law.

Opponents of judicial activism want it both ways. They complain when 
courts, like the Ontario Court of Appeal in the gay-marriage case, order 
immediate, mandatory remedies -- and they complain when the courts take 
a slower, gentler approach that allows the government to decide a 
remedy's details. Maybe they just don't want courts to play any role in 
our constitutional democracy.

The idea that the case is a novel exercise of judicial power distorts 
the history of the law. The idea that rights are only meaningful if 
there are prompt and effective remedies has long been part of the common 
law and the rule of law. Judges don't hesitate to order managerial 
remedies in the commercial law context. Why deprive vulnerable 
minorities of the benefits of similar judicial powers?

Kent Roach, a professor of law at the University of Toronto, is author 
of Constitutional Remedies in Canada.




Other related posts: