Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-5nwft Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-06T12:29:01.973Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Use of United States Decisions by the Supreme Court of Canada Under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 November 2009

Christopher P. Manfredi
Christopher P. Manfredi
Affiliation:
McGill University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The adoption of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms has generated considerable interest among legal commentators who question the potential impact of United States civil rights jurisprudence on Charter adjudication. This article offers a preliminary analysis of the impact of US constitutional law generally, and civil rights jurisprudence in particular, on Charter adjudication in the Supreme Court of Canada between 1984 and 1988. Focussing on the Supreme Court's citations of US decisions, the study finds that the frequency of such citations has increased under the Charter. Moreover, the Court's use of these decisions has had a significant substantive impact in defining the nature of constitutional interpretation and the content of the Charter's legal rights.

Résumé

L'adoption de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés a suscité un intérêt considérable parmi les commentateurs juridiques sur l'incidence potentielle de la jurisprudence des droits civils des États-Unis sur les décisions rendues en vertu de la Charte. Le présent article offre une analyse préliminaire de l'impact du droit constitutionnel américain en général et de la jurisprudence des droits civils en particulier, sur les décisions rendues en vertu de la Charte par la Cour suprême du Canada entre 1984 et 1988. Axée sur les citations par la Cour suprême des décisions américaines, l'étude montre que la fréquence de ces citations a augmenté en vertu de la Charte. Par ailleurs, l'usage de ces décisions par les tribunaux a eu un effet appréciable sur l'interprétation constitutionnelle et le contenu des droits juridiques de la Charte.

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique , Volume 23 , Issue 3 , September 1990 , pp. 499 - 518
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Political Science Association (l'Association canadienne de science politique) and/et la Société québécoise de science politique 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See, for example, Stone, Dennis and Walpole, F. Kim, “The Canadian Constitution Act and the Constitution of the United States: A Comparative Analysis,” Canadian-American Law Journal 2 (1983), 1–36Google Scholar; Tarnopolsky, Walter S., “The New Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as Compared and Contrasted with the American Bill of Rights,” Human Rights Quarterly 5 (1983), 227–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bender, Paul, “The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the United States Bill of Rights: A Comparison,” McGill Law Journal 28 (1983), 811–66Google Scholar; Days, Drew S. III, “Civil Rights in Canada: An American Perspective,” American Journal of Comparative Law 32 (1984), 328–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Rosenberg, David, “Litigating Civil Rights and Liberties in the United States: A Vital But Flawed Enterprise,” and Spitz, Stephen L., “Litigation Strategy in Equality Rights: The American Experience,” in Weiler, J. M. and Elliot, R. M (eds.), Litigating the Values of a Nation: The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Toronto: Carswell, 1986), 357–77, 385–410.Google Scholar

2 Snell, James G. and Vaughan, Frederick, The Supreme Court of Canada: History of the Institution (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1985), 253.Google Scholar Canadians can expect little guidance from American courts, of course, in the contentious area of language rights.

3 Hogg, Peter W., Constitutional Law of Canada (2nd ed.; Toronto: Carswell, 1985), 679Google Scholar, note 149. The October 1980 draft of section 1 referred to “reasonable limits… in a free and democratic society with a parliamentary system of government.”

4 Romanow, Roy, White, John and Leeson, Howard, Canada Notwithstanding: The Making of the Constitution, 1976–1982 (Toronto: Carswell, 1984), 245–46.Google Scholar

5 Gold, Alan D., “The Legal Rights Provisions—A New Vision or Deja Vu,” Supreme Court Law Review 4 (1982), 108.Google Scholar According to Gold, the US Supreme Court's school desegregation decision in Brown v. Board of Education [347 US 483 (1954)] was “such a moral supernova in civil liberties adjudication that it almost singlehandedly justifies the exercise.”

6 Monahan, Patrick, Politics and the Constitution: The Charter, Federalism and the Supreme Court of Canada (Toronto: Carswell, 1987), 73–96Google Scholar; Mandel, Michael, The Charter of Rights and the Legalization of Politics in Canada (Toronto: Wall and Thompson, 1989), 6–7, 48–61Google Scholar; Morton, F. L., “The Politics of Rights: What Canadians Should Know About the American Bill of Rights,” Windsor Review of Legal and Social Issues 1 (1989), 61–96Google Scholar; and Hogg, Peter W., “The Charter of Rights and American Theories of Interpretation,” Osgoode Hall Law Journal 25 (1987), 87–113.Google Scholar

7 Law Society of Upper Canada v. Skapinker, [1984] 1 S.C.R. 357, 9 D.L.R. (4th) 161, at 168.

8 Reference re s.94(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 486, 24 D.L.R. (4th) 536, at 546.

9 [1987] 1 S.C.R. 588, at 639.

10 Simmons v. The Queen, (1988) 55 D.L.R. (4th) 673, at 689.

11 For a more detailed legal analysis of this impact, see Christopher P. Manfredi, “American Jurisprudence and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms: Supreme Court Citation of United States Cases, 1984–1988” (unpublished manuscript).

12 Mowat, Oliver, “Observation on the Use and Value of American Reports in Reference to Canadian Jurisprudence,” Upper Canada Law Journal 3 (1857), 3–7Google Scholar; Lex, , “The Authority of American Decisions in Canadian and English Courts,” Canada Law Journal 35 (1899), 518–20Google Scholar; Comment, , “The Use of American Legal Literature,” Canadian Bar Review 21 (1943), 57–58Google Scholar; and Macintyre, J. M., “The Use of American Cases in Canadian Courts,” University of British Columbia Law Review 2 (1964–1966), 478–90.Google Scholar The two later articles suggest that, after an initial period of acceptance, a bias emerged against American authorities and texts in Canadian law schools and courtrooms.

13 Bushnell, S. I., “The Use of American Cases,” University of New Brunswick Law Journal 35 (1986), 157–81.Google Scholar

14 Ibid., 158–61, 169.

15 Citations of the same case in both volumes of the Reports for a single year are counted as separate citations, however.

16 Thorson v. A.-G. Canada, [1975] 1 S.C.R. 138.

17 See Gibson, Dale and Gibson, Scott, “Enforcement of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms,” in Beaudoin, Gérard-A. and Ratushny, Ed (eds.), The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (2nd ed.; Toronto: Carswell, 1989), 791–92.Google Scholar

18 392 U.S. 83 (1968). Cited by Laskin at [1975] 1 S.C.R. 138, at 159.

19 262 U.S. 447 (1923). Cited by Laskin at [1975] 1 S.C.R. 138, at 159.

20 See Rossum, Ralph A. and Tarr, G. Alan, American Constitutional Law: Cases and Interpretation (2nd ed.; New York: St. Martin's, 1987), 51.Google Scholar

21 See N.S. Bd. of Censors v. McNeil, [1976] 2 S.C.R. 265 and Min. of Justice (Can.) v. Borowski, [1981] 2 S.C.R. 575. See also Gibson and Gibson, “Enforcement of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms,” 792–93.

22 Citations of US cases were prominent in Laskin's reasons for judgment in several criminal law cases involving the 1960 Bill of Rights. See R. v. Appleby, [1972] S.C.R. 303; Curr v. The Queen, [1972] S.C.R. 889; Morgentaler v. The Queen, [1976] 1 S.C.R. 616; Coté v. The Queen, [1975] 1 S.C.R. 303; R. v. Burnshine, [1975] 1 S.C.R. 303; Adgey v. The Queen, [1975] 2 S.C.R. 426; Hogan v. The Queen, [1975] 2 S.C.R. 574. In addition to these criminal law matters, Laskin relied on American cases to support his dissents in two other significant decisions during this period Harrison v. Carswell, [1976] 2 S.C.R. 200 and Murdoch v. Murdoch, [1975] 1 S.C.R. 423.

23 Bushnell, “The Use of American Cases,” 174, and Morton, F. L. (ed.), Law, Politics and the Judicial Process in Canada (Calgary: University of Calgary Press, 1984), 188.Google Scholar

24 On the Canadian bar's historical preference for English precedents, see Bushnell, “The Use of American Cases,” 164. It should also be noted that the Court's use of decisions from other European jurisdictions has increased substantially under the Charter. Since 1949, the Court has cited European decisions 70 times, with 41 of these citations occurring during the Charter era (58.6%).

25 Commentators differ on the number of Charter cases decided by the Supreme Court, depending on how they count cases concerning similar subject matters decided at the same time. This analysis relies on the count provided by the Research Unit for Socio-Legal Studies at the University of Calgary, which publishes the series Leading Constitutional Decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada.

26 This proportion of Charter cases containing a US citation—41.1 per cent—is well above the historical proportion of 9 per cent reported in Bushnell, “The Use of American Cases,” 160.

27 Law Society of British Columbia v. Andrews (1989) 56 D.L.R. (4th) 1. These US decisions included United States v. Carotene Products, 304 U.S. 144 (1938); Buckv. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927); Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U.S. 677 (1973); Re Griffiths, 413 U.S. 717 (1973); Dennis v. United States, 339 U.S. 162 (1950); Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896); and Graham v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 365 (1971).

28 R. v.Beare, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 387; Hufsky v. The Queen, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 621; Corbett v. The Queen, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 670; Smith v. The Queen, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 1045; Vaillancourt v. The Queen, [1987] 2 S.C.R., 636; Lyons v. The Queen, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 309; and Mills v. The Queen, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 863.

29 Jones v. The Queen, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 284, and Edwards Books and Art v. The Queen, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 713.

30 Reference re Public Service Employees Relations Act (Alberta), [1987] 1 S.C.R. 313, and RWDSU v. Dolphin Delivery, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 284.

31 Wolfe, Christopher, “A Theory of U.S. Constitutional History,” Journal of Politics 43 (1981), 292–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

32 Ibid., 300, 303, 304–08. According to Wolfe, judicial review has also been much more frequent during the modern era.

33 Ely, John Hart, Democracy and Distrust: A Theory of Judicial Review (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1980), 1.Google Scholar

34 See, for example, Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954); Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962); and Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965). For a critique of the Warren Court's non-interpretivism, see Berger, Raoul, Government by Judiciary: The Transformation of the Fourteenth Amendment (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1977), 69–98, 117–33.Google Scholar Even strong supporters of these Warren Court decisions argue that they are non-interpretive. See Perry, Michael J., The Constitution, the Courts, and Human Rights (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1982Google Scholar).

35 Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973). See Ely, Democracy and Distrust, 2. The significance of this non-interpretive character of the US decisions cited by the Canadian Court is discussed below.

36 For a discussion of US First Amendment jurisprudence, see Rossum and Tarr, American Constitutional Law, 328–49 (freedom of speech, press and association), 387–98 (freedom of religion).

37 Smith v. The Queen, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 1045.

38 R. v. Big M Drug Mart, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295; Edwards Books and Art v. The Queen, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 713; and Jones v. The Queen, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 284.

39 RWDSU v. Dolphin Delivery, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 573, and Fordv. Quebec (A.-G), [1988] 2 S.C.R. 712.

40 Reference re Public Service Employees Relations Act (Alberta), [ 1987] 1 S.C.R. 313.

41 No limitations were imposed on the substantive definition of fundamental freedoms in Big M Drug Mart, Edwards Books and Art, Dolphin Delivery and Ford. The Court did impose limitations in Jones and the Alberta Labour Reference, but only by slim margins.

42 See Edwards Books and Art, 35 D.L.R. (4th) 1, at 33 (per Dickson C.J.).

43 Rossum, Ralph A., The Politics of the Criminal Justice System: An Organizational Analysis (New York: Marcel Dekker, 1978), 118–25.Google Scholar

44 Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383 (1914), and Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1962).

45 United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984). In this case the US Court acknowledged a “good faith” exception to the exclusionary rule.

46 Horowitz, Donald L., The Courts and Social Policy (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 1977), 222–37Google Scholar, and Schlesinger, Stephen R., “Criminal Procedure in the Courtroom,” in Wilson, James Q. (ed.), Crime and Public Policy (San Francisco: ICS Press, 1983), 192–200.Google Scholar

47 The only other justice among the group with an American legal education is Willaid Estey, who earned a graduate law degree from Harvard in 1946.

48 Morton, F. L., “The Political Impact of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms,” this Journal 20 (1987), 35.Google Scholar

49 Hunter v. Southam (1984), 11 D.L.R. (4th) 641, at 650.

50 R. v. Big M Drug Mart (1985), 18 D.L.R. (4th) 321, at 360.

51 Reference re s. 94(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act (B.C.) (1985), 24 D.L.R. (4th) 536, and Morgentaler, Smoling and Scott v. The Queen (1988), 44 D.L.R. (4th) 385

52 On the emergence of substantive review, see Christopher P. Manfredi, “Fundamental Justice in the Supreme Court of Canada: Decisions Under Section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1984–1988,” American Journal of Comparative Law forthcoming.

53 24 D.L.R. (4th) at 546.

54 Ibid., 554.

55 44 D.L.R. (4th) at 394.

56 Hunter v. Southam (1984), 11 D.L.R. (4th) 641, at 650. See McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819). McCulloch was also cited by Estey, Justice Willard in Law Society of Upper Canada v. Skapinker (1984)Google Scholar, 9 D.L.R. (4th) 161, at 169–70.

57 F. L. Morton and Rainer Knopff have argued that there has also been a modern reinterpretation of Lord Sankey's “living tree” metaphor in Charter cases. According to Morton and Knopff, when applied in its original context, the “living tree” metaphor encourages legislative flexibility; when applied in the Charter context, it encourages judicial creativity and activism in nullifying legislative policy choices. See F. L. Morton and Rainer Knopff, “Permanence and Change in a Written Constitution: The ‘Living Tree’ Doctrine and the Charter of Rights,” Supreme Court Law Review (forthcoming).

58 Operation Dismantle v. The Queen (1985), 18 D.L.R. (4th) 481, at 500–05. These cases included Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803); Brown v. Boardof Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954); and United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 583 (1974).

59 R. v. Big M Drug Mart (1985), 18 D.L.R. (4th) 321, at 371–72 (quoting Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424, 431 [1970].

60 Knopff, Rainer, Human Rights and Social Technology: The New War on Discrimination (Ottawa: Carleton University Press, 1989), 57–58.Google Scholar

61 Law Society of British Columbia v. Andrews (1989), 56 D.L.R. (4th) 1.

62 Reference re s. 94(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act (B.C.) (1985), 24 D.L.R. (4th) 536, at 550; Morgentaler, Smoling and Scott v. The Queen (1988), 44 D.L.R. (4th) 385, at 412.

63 Ely, Democracy and Distrust, 43–72.

64 Packer, Herbert L., The Limits of the Criminal Sanction (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1968), 149–73.Google Scholar

65 See, for example, Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961); Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478 (1964); and Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 437 (1966).

66 Contrary to American jurisprudence, it accepted the reasonableness of randomly stopping motor vehicles in Hufsky v. The Queen, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 621, at 637.

67 Morton, “The Political Impact of the Canadian Charterof Rights and Freedoms,” 37.

68 Hunter v. Southam (1984), 11 D.L.R. (4th) 641, at 653 (emphasis in original), and Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 351, 356–57.

69 Re Singh and Minister of Employment and Immigration (1985), 17 D.L.R. (4th) 422, at 458.

70 Ibid., 469. In all likelihood, the three-stage determination process of the new immigration law would not meet the standards articulated in Singh.

71 Manfredi, Christopher P., “Human Dignity and the Psychology of Interrogation in Miranda v. Arizona,” Canadian Journal of Law and Society 1 (1986), 110–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

72 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). Warren defined custodial interrogation as “incommunicado interrogation of individuals in a police-dominated atmosphere.”

73 Ibid., 460.

74 In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 47 (1967).

75 R. v. Therens (1985) 18 D.L.R. (4th) 655, at 680 (concerned with psychological compulsion), and R. v. Oakes (1986) 26 D.L.R. (4th) 200, at 212 (presumption of innocence protects “the fundamental liberty and human dignity of every person accused… of criminal conduct”).

76 Ciarksonv. The Queen (1986) 26 D.L.R. (4th) 493, at 503 (“adjudicative process must arrive at truth in a way which does not reflect an abuse by the police or the Crown of its dominant position vis-a-vis the individual”); Simmons v. The Queen (1988), 55 D.L.R. (4th) 673, at 706 (section 8 “tied to a broader concern reflected in many of the legal rights in the Charter to prevent the citizen from being overborne by the much greater power of the state”); and Morgentaler, Smoling and Scott v. The Queen (1988) 44 D.L.R. (4th) 385, at 491 (section 7 protects reproductive freedom, which is “an integral part of modern woman's struggle to assert her dignity and worth as a human being”).

77 A.-G. Quebec v. Quebec Association of Protestant School Boards, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 66, at 84.

78 Hutchinson, Allan C. and Petter, Andrew, “Private Rights/Public Wrongs: The Liberal Lie of the Charter,” University of Toronto Law Journal 38 (1988), 296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

79 The assertion that the US Constitution is “what the Court says it is” was made by US Supreme Court Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes while he was governor of New York. See Rossum and Tarr, American Constitutional Law, 1. In Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 17 (1958), the US Court asserted that “the federal judiciary is supreme in the exposition of the law of the Constitution.”

80 Morton, “The Political Impact of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms,” 55. For a discussion of judicial supremacy in the US context, see Agresto, John, The Supreme Court and Constitutional Democracy (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1984), 77–138.Google Scholar