Introduction

• Author: John Helis
• Pages: 1-15

1

 1

Introduction

A number of laws in Canada are referred to as quasi-constitutionalby

the courts in recognition of their importance. Quasi-constitutionallaws

consist of several federal and provincial statutes that were enacted through

the regular legislative process, as well as one common law principle. ey

have received this label by the courts because they are of “fundamental

importance,” of “fundamental value in our society,” and, indeed, “funda-

mental in the Canadian legal system.”

Quasi-constitutionality is a judicial designation. e term itself is not

found anywhere in legislation or in the written Constitution. Rather, it

is a judicial response to laws that have been “designed and adopted to

perform a more fundamental role than ordinary statutes in this coun-

try.” is fundamental role has resulted in the Supreme Court of Can-

ada declaring that quasi-constitutional laws, “save . . . constitutional laws,

[are] more important than all others.”

As a consequence of their importance, the Supreme Court of Can-

ada has held that quasi-constitutional laws “supersede all other laws when

 Hill v Church of Scientology of Toronto,[]  SCR  at para  [Hill].

 R v Osolin, []  SCR  at para .

 Lavigne v Canada (Oce of the Commissioner of Ocial Languages), SCC  at

para  [Lavigne].

 Law Society of Upper Canada v Skapinker, []  SCR  at para  [Skapinker].

 Insurance Corporation of British Columbia v Heerspink, []  SCR  at  [Heerspink].