Overview

Shortlisted for the 2002 Donner Prize (first edition) The Supreme Court of Canada has been accused of usurping Canadian democracy on a long list of divisive topics, including assisted dying, sex work, supervised injection sites, same-sex marriage, labour relations, election spending, and health care policy. Some critics claim that the nine unelected judges on Canada's highest Court have used the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to impose their own views on public policy over those of elected governments. This book joins the crucial debate about the Charter, the Court, and Canadian democracy, and was shortlisted for the Donner Prize in public policy when originally published. Some of the questions that Kent Roach considers in this important and timely book include: What is judicial activism? Is the Charter making us more like America, where the political nature of the judges appointed to the Court has become critical? Can judges simply read their own political preferences into the Charter? Are judges captive to special interests? What can governments and people do when they think the Court has got it wrong? This revised edition updates the continued dialogue between the Court and Canadian governments and society over Charter issues, including recent dialogues about assisted dying and supervised injection sites. It also responds to criticisms from some commentators that the dialogue between courts and the government is a fraudulent and undemocratic monologue, and from others who believe that this dialogue can undermine the rule of law. In short, The Supreme Court on Trial makes an important contribution to understanding the role of the Court and the Charter in our democracy.

Full Product Details

9781552214381

Table of Contents

Reviews

[The courts'] dilemma has been how to reconcile their new role as active guardians of fundamental values with the democratic values and traditions of Canadian society.... ...An excellent and sophisticated guide to this continuing challenge is offered by Kent Roach in The Supreme Court on Trial: Judicial Activism or Democratic Dialogue (Irwin Law, 2001).... Roach puts forward a balanced approach that insists that activism is less about whether judges rely on political preferences at all and more about the sources of such values and the extent to which they rely on them. --Allan Hutchinson, Charting a New Course, The Globe and Mail, 04/14/2007

Author Information

Kent Roach, CM, FRSC, is a professor of law at the University of Toronto, where he holds the Prichard-Wilson Chair in Law and Public Policy. In 2002, he was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada by his fellow academics and in 2015 was appointed a member of the Order of Canada. In 2013, he was awarded a Trudeau Fellowship and in 2017 the Canada Council awarded him the Molson Prize for his contributions. He has taught criminal law since 1989 and been editor-in-chief of the Criminal Law Quarterly since 1998. He is the co-editor of Cases and Materials on Criminal Law and Procedure, numerous collections of essays and thirteen books, including Constitutional Remedies in Canada (winner of the 1997 Walter Owen Book Prize); Due Process and Victims' Rights: The New Law and Politics of Criminal Justice (shortlisted for the 1999 Donner Prize); The Supreme Court on Trial: Judicial Activism or Democratic Dialogue (shortlisted for the 2001 Donner Prize); (with Robert J. Sharpe) Brian Dickson: A Judge's Journey (winner of the 2003 Defoe Prize); The 9/11 Effect: Comparative Counter-Terrorism (co-winner of the 2012 Mundell Medal); and (with Craig Forcese) False Security: The Radicalization of Canadian Anti-Terrorism (winner of the 2016 Canadian Law and Society book prize). Professor Roach has served as research director of the Commission of Inquiry into the Bombing of Air India and the Goudge Inquiry into Forensic Pathology and was volume lead on the Truth and Reconciliation's Commission volume of the legacy of Residential Schools for Indigenous children. Acting pro bono, he has represented civil liberties and Indigenous groups in interventions before the Supreme Court, including in Golden and Ward on strip searches; Khawaja on terrorism; Latimer on mandatory sentencing; Gladue, Ipeelee, and Anderson on sentencing Indigenous offenders; and Sauve on prisoner voting rights.

Tab Content 6

Customer Reviews

Recent Reviews

Countries Available