William R. McIntyre: Paladin of Common Law.

• Position: Book Review

Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press, 2000. Pp. x, 248.

This is the first biography of a justice of the Supreme Court to be published since the introduction of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, making it a valuable contribution to Canadian legal history. Drawing principally on testimonials from McIntyre J., his family, and colleagues, this book provides a balanced survey of McIntyre J.'s professional career and fascinating personal life.

The book begins with a descriptive account of McIntyre J.'s early years growing up in Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan, during the Great Depression, his university career, and his wartime experiences. The main focus of this book, however, is on his constitutional, quasiconstitutional, and criminal law judgments. In addition, the final chapter provides a revealing commentary of his views on legal education, leniency and harshness in sentencing, the length of Supreme Court judgments and headnotes, "reading down" and "reading in", the Reference Re Secession of Quebec, and the Charter's impact on the legislative supremacy of Parliament.

As the title suggests, the prevailing theme of McConnell's work concerns McIntyre J.'s commitment to common law principles. Since the introduction of the Charter, McIntyre J. has stubbornly argued that--with the exception of language rights--the Charter does not grant any rights or freedoms that have not already been provided for by the common law. Brandishing this viewpoint, he has opposed what he has perceived as the Supreme Court's tendency to read the Charter too broadly. As a result, McIntyre J. believes that the Court has been progressively distancing itself from established common law principles and undermining Parliament's competence to determine public policy by single-handedly formulating new rights and freedoms. McIntyre J.'s methodology is evident in his dissent in R. v. Morgentaler and Irwin Toy v. Quebec (A.G.). The problem, as he saw it, was not with the Charter, but with the Court's increased judicial activism or "interventionism" in adjudicating Charter cases.

Much to the chagrin of McIntyre J., he has been frequently dubbed a "judicial conservative", largely because of the self-restraint characteristically featured in his judgments. Although he claims he has never opposed the Charter, McIntyre J. regrets the judiciary's increasing entanglement in political disputes. In his opinion, the Court has...