Standing, Suspending, and Sharing: The Limits of the Charter as a Tool of Social Change in Criminal Justice

AuthorAlan N Young
Pages1-48
StandingSuspendingandSharing
THELIMITSOFTHECHART ER
ASATOOLOFSOCIALCHANGEIN
CRIMINALJUSTICE
Alan N Young*
A . INT RODUCTION
There are many who celebrate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as a
crowningach ievementandacatalystofprogressivesociala ndpolitical
changeOthersarenot sosangui neandte ndtoview theenactment of
constitutional rights asdoing nothing greaterthanac hievingt heap
pearanceof fairnessa ndpromotingthe legitimization ofacla ssand
race biased judicial processT he truth lies somewhere in between
the praise and condemnation One can not gainsay that over the past
thirtyve years there have been many constitutiona l challenges that
havebrought aboutdramatic andsigni cantchanges in ourlegal and
politicallandscapeW hetherthesedecisionshavealteredorsimplyre
ecttheaspirationandprinciplesofallCanadiansisofnoconsequence
Therewillalwaysbedetractorswhobemoantheriseofjudicialactivism
under the Charterandcontendthatt hejudiciaryi sillequippedt oresolve
 OsgoodeHallLawSchool
 DavidRudovskyTheCriminalJust iceSystemandtheRoleofthePoliceinDavid
KairysedTh ePoliticsofLawAProgressiveCritiqueNYPantheonBookssee
alsoStuar tSheingoldThePoliticsofRightsLawyersPublicPolicyandPoliticalChange
NewHavenCTYaleUniversityPressForaCanadianpersp ectiveonthe
mythofrightsseeM ichaelMandelThe Charte r of Rights and the Legalization of
Politics in Canada TorontoThompsonEducationalPublic ationsinwhichthe
authordiscuss esthepublicrelationsfunc tionoftheCharteranditsroleingivi ng
afailedimpressionofco ncernsforproceduralrig hts
ANY
publicpolicyorpoliticalquestionsbutmoreoftenthannotcomplaints
aboutjudicialcompetencesimplytendtobep oliticalstatementsabout
thedesirabilityofparticu larcourtdecisions
This chapter will eva luatethe ecacy a nd eciency of using the
CharterasatoolforsocialandpoliticalreformThisevaluationwillavoid
anya ssessmentof the desirabilityof particular court decisionsand
willaddressa dierentquestionwhet hertherestill existprocedural
constraints onthe processof constitutional adjudicationthat undercut
theecacyandeciencyofusingconstitutionalrightstoeectpolitical
changeDothepro cessrulesth atgoverntheadminis trationofciviland
criminal justice placeunnecessa ryobstacles int hepathof vindicating
rightsclaimsordotherulesofprocessfacilitatethelaunchingofmeri
toriousconstitutionalclaimsIn lightofmyacademica ndprofessional
experience Iwill limit my analysisto cases involving thelegal rights
provisions of the Charterand whether the process r ules havehad a n
impacti neect ingprogr essivechange in the crimin aljust icesystem
Howeverdespitethisnarrowfocus onthe legalrights provisionsitis
generallyrecogn izedthat someoft hemostdramaticshifts inour pol
iticalla ndscapein recentdecades haveoccurred because ofsuccessful
equality chal lengesu nders ection of the CharterIn excluding con
siderationofsectioncasesitshouldalsoberecognizedthatachapter
ofthisbrevitycanonlyprovideapreliminar yassessmentofwhetherthe
Charterhasbeenaneectivetoolforprogressivesocialchange
In the context of crimin al lawin the past th irtyveyears t here
havebeensomeremarkableadvancesintheprotectionofprivacyandin
facilitatingthe righttoful lanswerand defencebutthepathto change
inthecriminalprocesshasbeen slowandpainful Ultimatelythepos
itiontakenin this chapteris that advancingCharter claims within the
preexistingproc eduralformsofouracceptedsystemofcivil andcrim
inaljusticeisf raughtwithobstaclesandlandminesThedeepst ructure
ofouradversarial systemdesignedto resolvecivila ndcrimina lcases
isill suitedf orthedete rmina tionofcompl expolicy questionsthata ect
theinterests ofthousandsif notmillionsofp eoplewhoarenotbefore
thecourt
Inthe earlyCharterdaysthe OntarioCourt ofAppealwas fondof
noting thatthe Charterdoes not intenda transformation of ourlegal
 RalphCavanaghAusti nSaratThinki ngaboutCourtsTowardandBeyonda
JurisprudenceofJudicia lCompetenceWinterLaw and Society Review
at
Standing, Suspending, and Sharing
systemhoweverw ithoutsome i nstitutional adjustments with in the
preexistingproceduralformsofjusticethereisariskthatthegrowthof
rig htsw ill best ult ied byc umbe rsom eand cost lypr oce sses forv ind ica
tionAlthoughitistritetosaythattheCharteristhesupre melawofth e
landthis basicproposition isoften forgoenasjuriststr ytosq ueeze
constitutional adjudicationi ntothe frameworkof existi ngprivate law
modelsof procedureThe factt hatit isthe supremelaw suggeststh at
itshouldbetreateddierent fromordinarydomesticlawTreatingitas
supremenotonlymeans thatanyinconsistencies foundinthesubsta n
tivecontent of ordin ary law will be held to be of no force and eect
butshouldalsomeanthatanyproceduralobstaclesstandingintheway
ofthe vindication ofcon stitutionalr ightswill also ber elegatedtot he
realmofnoforceandeect
InPart Bof thisc hapterIwill providefour examplesofhow pro
cedural forms tend to constrain the power of the Charter in eec ting
political and legal change These exa mplesrelating to st rip searches
impaireddrivingprostit utionandassistedsuicideshowthattryingto
bringaboutchangewithintheframeworkofaprivatelawmodelofad
judicationcanleadtopyrrhicvic toriesorirresoluteconclusionsInPart
CIwi lldiscuss howanunderstanding ofconstitutional rightsascol
lectiverights wouldleadtoarela xationorremovalof anyprocedural
obstaclesthatundulyencumberthevi ndicationofconstitutionalrights
Fina llyinPar tDIwi llbrie yexplor ewhet hersome ofthe exist ingpr o
ceduralconstrai ntsincludingt herules relatingtost andinglim itation
periodsocia limmun itycostsa ndremedies haveundergone some
degreeofchangetoaccommodatetheuniqueneedsanddemandsofthe
supremelawoftheland
B T H EPR OB LEM O FP Y R R H IC V IC T OR I E S
AND IRRESOLUTE CONCLUSIONS
Whetheraconst itutionalchallengeis successfulornotanexamination
oftheprocessofbring ingthec hallengetocompletionc anrevealsome
oftheproceduralobstaclesthatlieinthepathofvindicatingrightsFour
casestwo obscurea ndtwofamous illustratethe constraints thatcon
ventio nalpr ocedur alform splaceu ponane cienta ndin formed resolu
tionofconstitutionalquestions
R v AltseimerORdCAquotedinR v CarterORd
CAandR v SeoORdCAinter alia

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT