Standing, Suspending, and Sharing: The Limits of the Charter as a Tool of Social Change in Criminal Justice
Author | Alan N Young |
Pages | 1-48 |
StandingSuspendingandSharing
THELIMITSOFTHECHART ER
ASATOOLOFSOCIALCHANGEIN
CRIMINALJUSTICE
Alan N Young*
A . INT RODUCTION
There are many who celebrate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as a
crowningach ievementandacatalystofprogressivesociala ndpolitical
changeOthersarenot sosangui neandte ndtoview theenactment of
constitutional rights asdoing nothing greaterthanac hievingt heap
pearanceof fairnessa ndpromotingthe legitimization ofacla ssand
race biased judicial processT he truth lies somewhere in between
the praise and condemnation One can not gainsay that over the past
thirtyve years there have been many constitutiona l challenges that
havebrought aboutdramatic andsigni cantchanges in ourlegal and
politicallandscapeW hetherthesedecisionshavealteredorsimplyre
ecttheaspirationandprinciplesofallCanadiansisofnoconsequence
Therewillalwaysbedetractorswhobemoantheriseofjudicialactivism
under the Charterandcontendthatt hejudiciaryi sillequippedt oresolve
OsgoodeHallLawSchool
DavidRudovskyTheCriminalJust iceSystemandtheRoleofthePoliceinDavid
KairysedTh ePoliticsofLawAProgressiveCritiqueNYPantheonBookssee
alsoStuar tSheingoldThePoliticsofRightsLawyersPublicPolicyandPoliticalChange
NewHavenCTYaleUniversityPressForaCanadianpersp ectiveonthe
mythofrightsseeM ichaelMandelThe Charte r of Rights and the Legalization of
Politics in Canada TorontoThompsonEducationalPublic ationsinwhichthe
authordiscuss esthepublicrelationsfunc tionoftheCharteranditsroleingivi ng
afailedimpressionofco ncernsforproceduralrig hts
ANY
publicpolicyorpoliticalquestionsbutmoreoftenthannotcomplaints
aboutjudicialcompetencesimplytendtobep oliticalstatementsabout
thedesirabilityofparticu larcourtdecisions
This chapter will eva luatethe ecacy a nd eciency of using the
CharterasatoolforsocialandpoliticalreformThisevaluationwillavoid
anya ssessmentof the desirabilityof particular court decisionsand
willaddressa dierentquestionwhet hertherestill existprocedural
constraints onthe processof constitutional adjudicationthat undercut
theecacyandeciencyofusingconstitutionalrightstoeectpolitical
changeDothepro cessrulesth atgoverntheadminis trationofciviland
criminal justice placeunnecessa ryobstacles int hepathof vindicating
rightsclaimsordotherulesofprocessfacilitatethelaunchingofmeri
toriousconstitutionalclaimsIn lightofmyacademica ndprofessional
experience Iwill limit my analysisto cases involving thelegal rights
provisions of the Charterand whether the process r ules havehad a n
impacti neect ingprogr essivechange in the crimin aljust icesystem
Howeverdespitethisnarrowfocus onthe legalrights provisionsitis
generallyrecogn izedthat someoft hemostdramaticshifts inour pol
iticalla ndscapein recentdecades haveoccurred because ofsuccessful
equality chal lengesu nders ection of the CharterIn excluding con
siderationofsectioncasesitshouldalsoberecognizedthatachapter
ofthisbrevitycanonlyprovideapreliminar yassessmentofwhetherthe
Charterhasbeenaneectivetoolforprogressivesocialchange
In the context of crimin al lawin the past th irtyveyears t here
havebeensomeremarkableadvancesintheprotectionofprivacyandin
facilitatingthe righttoful lanswerand defencebutthepathto change
inthecriminalprocesshasbeen slowandpainful Ultimatelythepos
itiontakenin this chapteris that advancingCharter claims within the
preexistingproc eduralformsofouracceptedsystemofcivil andcrim
inaljusticeisf raughtwithobstaclesandlandminesThedeepst ructure
ofouradversarial systemdesignedto resolvecivila ndcrimina lcases
isill suitedf orthedete rmina tionofcompl expolicy questionsthata ect
theinterests ofthousandsif notmillionsofp eoplewhoarenotbefore
thecourt
Inthe earlyCharterdaysthe OntarioCourt ofAppealwas fondof
noting thatthe Charterdoes not intenda transformation of ourlegal
RalphCavanaghAusti nSaratThinki ngaboutCourtsTowardandBeyonda
JurisprudenceofJudicia lCompetenceWinterLaw and Society Review
at
Standing, Suspending, and Sharing
systemhoweverw ithoutsome i nstitutional adjustments with in the
preexistingproceduralformsofjusticethereisariskthatthegrowthof
rig htsw ill best ult ied byc umbe rsom eand cost lypr oce sses forv ind ica
tionAlthoughitistritetosaythattheCharteristhesupre melawofth e
landthis basicproposition isoften forgoenasjuriststr ytosq ueeze
constitutional adjudicationi ntothe frameworkof existi ngprivate law
modelsof procedureThe factt hatit isthe supremelaw suggeststh at
itshouldbetreateddierent fromordinarydomesticlawTreatingitas
supremenotonlymeans thatanyinconsistencies foundinthesubsta n
tivecontent of ordin ary law will be held to be of no force and eect
butshouldalsomeanthatanyproceduralobstaclesstandingintheway
ofthe vindication ofcon stitutionalr ightswill also ber elegatedtot he
realmofnoforceandeect
InPart Bof thisc hapterIwill providefour examplesofhow pro
cedural forms tend to constrain the power of the Charter in eec ting
political and legal change These exa mplesrelating to st rip searches
impaireddrivingprostit utionandassistedsuicideshowthattryingto
bringaboutchangewithintheframeworkofaprivatelawmodelofad
judicationcanleadtopyrrhicvic toriesorirresoluteconclusionsInPart
CIwi lldiscuss howanunderstanding ofconstitutional rightsascol
lectiverights wouldleadtoarela xationorremovalof anyprocedural
obstaclesthatundulyencumberthevi ndicationofconstitutionalrights
Fina llyinPar tDIwi llbrie yexplor ewhet hersome ofthe exist ingpr o
ceduralconstrai ntsincludingt herules relatingtost andinglim itation
periodsocia limmun itycostsa ndremedies haveundergone some
degreeofchangetoaccommodatetheuniqueneedsanddemandsofthe
supremelawoftheland
B T H EPR OB LEM O FP Y R R H IC V IC T OR I E S
AND IRRESOLUTE CONCLUSIONS
Whetheraconst itutionalchallengeis successfulornotanexamination
oftheprocessofbring ingthec hallengetocompletionc anrevealsome
oftheproceduralobstaclesthatlieinthepathofvindicatingrightsFour
casestwo obscurea ndtwofamous illustratethe constraints thatcon
ventio nalpr ocedur alform splaceu ponane cienta ndin formed resolu
tionofconstitutionalquestions
R v AltseimerORdCAquotedinR v CarterORd
CAandR v SeoORdCAinter alia
To continue reading
Request your trial