Legislating under the Charter explores how governments and Parliament justify limitations on rights when advancing laws that raise rights concerns or when responding to judicial decisions under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Through an analysis of legislation concerning criminal justice policy, the approval of new safe consumption sites, sex work, and medical assistance in dying, the book provides a detailed analysis of the extent and nature of parliamentary deliberation about rights, the extent to which government initiatives are properly scrutinized, and the broader institutional relationships under the Charter. The authors draw from a host of qualitative data, including research interviews and examination of judicial decisions, various bills under study, Hansard debates from the floor of the House of Commons, committee and Senate scrutiny of legislation, bureaucratic advice and Charter statements by the department of justice, and news media coverage. The book offers a set of concrete reform proposals to improve the transparency and accountability of executive and bureaucratic vetting processes, and to strengthen the role of Parliament in upholding constitutional values and holding the government to account. In doing so, Legislating under the Charter contributes to the broader comparative scholarship on models of judicial review, morality policy, policy change, and constitutionalism.

"Legislating under the Charter explores how governments and Parliament justify limitations on rights when advancing laws that raise rights concerns or when responding to judicial decisions under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Through an analysis of legislation concerning criminal justice policy, the approval of new safe consumption sites, sex work, and medical aid in dying, the book provides a detailed analysis of the extent and nature of parliamentary deliberation about rights, the extent to which government initiatives are properly scrutinized, and the broader institutional relationships under the Charter. The authors draw from a host of qualitative data, including research interviews and examination of judicial decisions, various bills under study, Hansard debates from the floor of the House of Commons, committee and Senate scrutiny of legislation, bureaucratic advice and Charter statements by the department of justice, and news media coverage. The book offers a set of concrete reform proposals to improve the transparency and accountability of executive and bureaucratic vetting processes, and to strengthen the role of Parliament in upholding constitutional values and holding the government to account. In doing so, Legislating under the Charter contributes to the broader comparative scholarship on models of judicial review, morality policy, policy change, and constitutionalism."--

In Governing from the Bench, Emmett Macfarlane draws on interviews with current and former justices, law clerks, and other staff members of the court to shed light on the institution’s internal environment and decision-making processes. He explores the complex role of the Supreme Court as an institution; exposes the rules, conventions, and norms that shape and constrain its justices’ behavior; and situates the court in its broader governmental and societal context, as it relates to the elected branches of government, the media, and the public.

Policy Change, Courts, and the Canadian Constitution aims to further our understanding of judicial policy impact and the role of the courts in shaping policy change. Bringing together a group of political scientists and legal scholars, this volume delves into a diverse set of policy areas, including health care issues, the regulation of elections, criminal justice policy, minority language education, citizenship, refugee policy, human rights legislation, and Indigenous policy. While much of the public law and judicial politics literatures focus on the impact of the constitution and the judicial role, scholarship on courts that makes policy change its central lens of analysis is surprisingly rare. Multidisciplinary in its approach to examining policy issues, this book focuses on specific cases or policy issues through a wide-ranging set of approaches, including the use of interview data, policy analysis, historical and interpretive analysis, and jurisprudential analysis.

This book argues that judges sacrifice individual rights by using less than their full powers in order to appear democratically legitimate.

The Canadian Senate has long been considered an institutional pariah, viewed as an undemocratic, outmoded warehouse for patronage appointments and mired in spending and workload scandals. In 2014, the federal government was compelled to refer constitutional questions to the Supreme Court relating to its attempts to enact senatorial elections and term limits. Constitutional Pariah explores the aftermath of Reference re Senate Reform, which barred major unilateral alteration of the Senate by Parliament. Ironically, the decision resulted in one of the most sweeping parliamentary reforms in Canadian history, creating a pathway to informal changes in the appointments process that have curbed patronage and partisanship. Despite reinvigorating the Senate, Reference re Senate Reform has far-reaching implications for constitutional reform in other contexts. Macfarlane’s sharp critique suggests that the Court’s nebulous approach to the amending formula raises the spectre of a frozen constitution, unable to evolve with the country.