Five More Minutes: Representing Public Interest Interveners Thirty-Five Years after the Charter
Author | Susan Ursel, Kristen Allen, & Alec Stromdahl |
Pages | 596-617 |
FiveMoreMinutes
REPRESENTINGPUBLICINTEREST
INTERVENERSTHIRTYFIVEYEARS
AFTERTHECHARTER
Susan Ursel, Kristen Allen, & Alec Stromdahl*
A. INTRODUCTION
Onalegal timesc aletheCanadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms could
besaidtobeinitslateadolescencehoveringonthebrinkofadulthood
anappropriatetimeto reviewandtake stocktoconsiderpastdevelop
mentsa nd to looka headT he evolutionof the involvement ofpublic
interestintervenersinthiscontextpart icularlyintheSupremeCourtof
Canadaist hefocus ofthispaperInitwe considersomeof theissues
facingtheCourtwithrespecttothefullandmeaningfulparticipationof
intervenersinthecontextofCharterlitigation
Todayitiswellacceptedthat theCourtwhen disposingofCharter
cases is engaging in an exercis e that is deeply integral to our demo
cratic institutionsandprocessesandt hatmeritsalegal processthat is
enhancedandr enderedmoretransparentbythe participationofpublic
interestintervenersThiswasnotalwaysthecaseWhentheCharterwas
UrselPhillipsFellowsHopki nsonLLPSusanUrselisapartnerKr istenAllenisa n
associateandAle cStromdahlisana rticlings tudent
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom s PartIoftheConstitutionActbeing
ScheduleBtotheCana daActUKc
Bythiswemeanthec lassicbranchesofdemoc raticgovernmentlegi slativeexecu
tiveandjudicialalt houghitispossibletoconceiveofma nyotherinstit utionsthat
arebothneces saryandinteg raltoafunct ioningdemocracysuchaseducatio nal
policingandbu reaucraticinst itutions
Five More Minutes
rstintroducedt heCourtwas extremelyhesitant toinviteelements of
publicdiscourseintothecourtro om
Howeverbythe late sthe Court began torecog nize the use
ful role that interveners could playas it created the bu ilding blocks
uponwh ich the Charter of Rights and Freedomswouldbeinterpreted
Intervenerswerevalued fortheir relativeobjectivit yandembracedfor
theirabilitytorepresentinterestsreectiveofthebroadersociopolitical
dynamicsthatunderliethelawsbeinginterpretedbyt heCourt
Howeverinrecent yearst heCourt has faced ani ncreasinglya m
bitious docketand it has soughtout new waysto balance competing
demandsforitstimeWhiletheCourtremainspermissiveaboutgrant
ingleavetointervenesincetherehasbeenaurryofamendments
to the Rules of the Supreme Court of Canadat hat haveimposed sig ni
cantconstraintsonthescopeofinterventionInaspanoftenyearsthe
lengthofintervenersfactahavebeencutinhalfthescope ofth eirfa cta
havebeen signicantly curtai ledand interveners ndtheir allotment
oftime fororalargumentwhen indeeditis grantedat allto amount
toveminutes
This chapter revisits the sociopolitical and inst itutional arguments
justifyi ngthebroadpart icipationofpublicinterestinterveners inCharter
casesandquerieswhether thelatestruleson interventionjeopardizet he
abilityofinterveners tofulll thesefu nctionsThec hapterisbrokeninto
foursectionsSectionBoutlinesthesociopoliticalandinstitutionaljusti
cationssupportingthebroadpart icipationofintervenersinCharter cases
IanBrodieFriendsoftheCourtT hePrivilegingofInterestGroupLitigantsinCanada
AlbanyStateUniversityofNewYorkPressJohnKochMaki ngRoom
NewDirection sinThirdPar tyInterventio nUniversity of Toronto Faculty of
Law Reviewat
JusticeFrankIacobuccia squotedinanintervieww ithThe Globe and MailSeeKirk
MakinInter venersHowManyareTooManyThe Globe and M ailMarch
A
SupremeCourtofCanadaSt atisticstoFebruaryonline
wwwscccsccacasedossierstatcatengaspxcata
BenjaminAla rieAndrewGreenInterve ntionsattheSupremeCourtofCanada
AccuracyAliationandAccep tanceOsgoode Hall Law Journal
Rules of the Supreme Court of CanadaS ORasamendedbySOR
SORSORSORRules
IbidSOR
IbidSOR
SupremeCourtofCan adaNoticestotheProfes sionMarchAlloingTim e
forOralArgument Marchonlinewwwscccsccaarlrnoticesavis
enga spxSCCAlloingTimeforOralArgu ment
To continue reading
Request your trial