By the Court decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada

Last updated

Justices of the Supreme Court of Canada have the option of releasing reasons for a unanimous decision anonymously by simply attributing the judgment to "The Court". The practice began around 1979 by Chief Justice Bora Laskin, borrowing from the US Supreme Court practice of anonymizing certain unanimous decisions. [1] Unlike in the US, which uses it primarily for uncontroversial cases, in Canada, it is used almost always for important and controversial cases. [2]

Contents

It has been suggested that the practice has been used to give greater authority to the decision by having the entire court speak as a single voice. [3]

Peter McCormick, a professor of political science at the University of Lethbridge who studies Canada's appellate courts, calls these "per coram decisions", but his terminology is not in general use. McCormick states that there were 9 reported per coram decisions prior to Laskin's term as Chief Justice of Canada, 15 reported per coram decisions under Laskin's chief justiceship, and 51 reported per coram decisions under Brian Dickson's chief justiceship. [4]

List

The following is a list of anonymous decisions that are attributed to "The Court":

Case nameCitationSubject
Quebec (AG) v Blaikie (No 1) [1979] 2 SCR 1016Minority language rights
Quebec (AG) v Blaikie (No 2) [1981] 1 SCR 312Language of delegated legislation
Quebec (AG) v Quebec Assn of Protestant School Boards [1984] 2 SCR 66Minority language education rights
Reference Re Manitoba Language Rights [1985] 1 SCR 721Language rights
R v Baig [1987] 2 SCR 537Right to counsel
Ford v Quebec (AG) [1988] 2 SCR 712Commercial freedom of expression
Devine v Quebec (AG) [1988] 2 SCR 790Freedom of expression, French language legislation
Tremblay v Daigle [1989] 2 SCR 530Abortion
Reference Re Milgaard [1992] 1 SCR 866Wrongful conviction - murder
Reference Re Secession of Quebec [1998] 2 SCR 217Secession
Del Zotto v Canada[1999] 1 SCR 3
Quebec (Deputy Minister of Revenue) v Nolisair International Inc (Trustee of); Sécurité Saglac (1992) Inc (Trustee of) v Quebec (Deputy Minister of Revenue)[1999] 1 SCR 759
R v Marshall [1999] 3 SCR 533Aboriginal fishing rights
Reference Re Firearms Act [2000] 1 SCR 783Gun control
R v Latimer [2001] 1 SCR 3Cruel and unusual punishment, mercy killings
Smith v Canada (AG)2001 SCC 88
Privacy Act (Can) (Re)2001 SCC 89
R v Larivière2001 SCC 93
United States v Burns 2001 SCC 7Extradition and execution
Suresh v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) 2002 SCC 1Torture
Ahani v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) 2002 SCC 2Torture
R v Powley 2003 SCC 43Métis hunting rights
R v Blais 2003 SCC 44Métis hunting rights
Reference Re Same-Sex Marriage 2004 SCC 79Same-sex marriage
R v RGL 2005 SCC 18
Solski (Tutor of) v Quebec (AG) 2005 SCC 14
Gosselin (Tutor of) v Quebec (AG) 2005 SCC 15
Okwuobi v Lester B Pearson School Board 2005 SCC 16
Provincial Court Judges' Assn of New Brunswick v New Brunswick (Minister of Justice) 2005 SCC 44Judicial independence
R v Rodrigue 2005 SCC 67
Forum des maires de la Péninsule acadienne v Canada (Food Inspection Agency) 2005 SCC 85
R v Hazout 2006 SCC 42
BCE Inc v 1976 Debentureholders 2008 SCC 69Nature of the duties of corporate directors in Canadian law.
R v Ahmad2011 SCC 6Whether Parliament's decision to limit superior courts from determining questions of disclosure of information pertaining to international relations, national defence or national security invades the core jurisdiction of superior courts
Reference Re Securities Act 2011 SCC 66Constitutionality of a proposed federal securities regulator.
Reference Re Broadcasting Act2012 SCC 4Whether Internet service providers are "broadcasters" when providing access to broadcasting through Internet
Momentous.ca Corp v Canadian American Association of Professional Baseball Ltd2012 SCC 9Conflict of laws
Fundy Settlement v Canada2012 SCC 14Taxation and trusts
Canada (AG) v Kane2012 SCC 64Standard of review of Public Service Staffing Tribunal decision
Construction Labour Relations v Driver Iron Inc2012 SCC 65Judicial review of Alberta Labour Relations Board decision
R v Mailhot2013 SCC 17Fairness of charge to jury.
R v Ibanescu2013 SCC 31Admissibility of straddle evidence
Reference re Senate Reform 2014 SCC 32Whether Parliament can unilaterally set fixed terms for Senators — Whether Parliament can unilaterally implement framework for consultative elections for appointments to Senate — Whether Parliament can unilaterally repeal ss. 23(3) and 23(4) of Constitution Act, 1867 requiring that Senators must own land worth $4,000 in province for which they are appointed and have net worth of at least $4,000 — Whether constitutional amendment abolishing Senate may be accomplished by general amending procedure or whether unanimous consent procedure applies
Carter v Canada (AG) 2015 SCC 5Physician-assisted suicide.
R v Goleski2015 SCC 6Burden of proof of proving an "excuse" under s. 794(2) of the Criminal Code
Zurich Insurance Co v Chubb Insurance Co of Canada2015 SCC 19Whether specific insurance company is an "insurer" for the purposes of Ontario statutory accident benefits scheme
Caplin v Canada (Justice)2015 SCC 32Whether Minister of Justice's surrender via extradition of an accused charged with murder was reasonable
Canada (AG) v Barnaby2015 SCC 31Whether Minister of Justice's surrender via extradition of an accused charged with murder was reasonable; Whether extraditing the accused to possibly be subjected to a fourth trial would be contrary to the principles of fundamental justice under s. 7 of the Charter
R v Smith 2015 SCC 34Whether regulations limiting the lawful possession of medical marijuana to dried forms infringe the right to life, liberty and security of the prison under s. 7 of the Charter; Whether accused has standing to challenge the constitutional validity of provisions under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act
R v Cody 2017 SCC 31Unreasonable delay.
R v Comeau 2018 SCC 15Interprovincial Trade.
Reference re An Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families2024 SCC 5Whether Parliament enacting a statute establishing national standards to protect Indigenous children and affirming Indigenous peoples’ inherent right of self‑government in relation to child and family services is ultra vires.

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Supreme Court of the United States</span> Highest court of jurisdiction in the US

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) is the highest court in the federal judiciary of the United States. It has ultimate appellate jurisdiction over all U.S. federal court cases, and over state court cases that turn on questions of U.S. constitutional or federal law. It also has original jurisdiction over a narrow range of cases, specifically "all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party." In 1803, the Court asserted itself the power of judicial review, the ability to invalidate a statute for violating a provision of the Constitution via the landmark case Marbury v Madison. It is also able to strike down presidential directives for violating either the Constitution or statutory law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Supreme Court of Canada</span> Highest court of Canada

The Supreme Court of Canada is the highest court in the judicial system of Canada. It comprises nine justices, whose decisions are the ultimate application of Canadian law, and grants permission to between 40 and 75 litigants each year to appeal decisions rendered by provincial, territorial and federal appellate courts. The Supreme Court is bijural, hearing cases from two major legal traditions and bilingual, hearing cases in both official languages of Canada.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Chief Justice of Canada</span> Presiding judge of the Supreme Court of Canada

The chief justice of Canada is the presiding judge of the nine-member Supreme Court of Canada, the highest judicial body in Canada. As such, the chief justice is the highest-ranking judge of the Canadian court system. The Supreme Court Act makes the chief justice, a Crown in Council appointment, meaning the Crown acting on the advice of the prime minister and minister of justice. The chief justice serves until they resign, turn 75 years old, die, or are removed from office for cause. By tradition, a new chief justice is chosen from among the court's incumbent puisne justices.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Bora Laskin</span> Chief Justice of Canada from 1973 to 1984

Bora Laskin was a Canadian jurist who served as the 14th chief justice of Canada from 1973 to 1984. Laskin was appointed a puisne justice of the Supreme Court in 1970, and served on the Ontario Court of Appeal from 1965 to 1970. Before he was named to the bench, Laskin worked as a lawyer and in academia.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Lyman Duff</span> Chief Justice of Canada from 1933 to 1944

Sir Lyman Poore Duff,, PC(UK) was a Canadian lawyer and judge who served as the eighth Chief Justice of Canada. He was the longest-serving justice of the Supreme Court of Canada.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Murray Gleeson</span> Australian former Chief Justice

Anthony Murray Gleeson is an Australian former judge who served as the 11th Chief Justice of Australia, in office from 1998 to 2008.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Jean Beetz</span> Canadian judge

Jean-Marie Philémon Joseph Beetz,, c.r. was a Canadian lawyer, academic and judge from Quebec. He served as a puisne justice of the Supreme Court of Canada from 1974 to 1988.

In law, a per curiamdecision or opinion is one that is not authored by or attributed to a specific judge, but rather ascribed to the entire court or panel of judges who heard the case. The term per curiam is Latin for 'by the court'.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Delaware Supreme Court</span> Highest court in the U.S. state of Delaware

The Delaware Supreme Court is the sole appellate court in the United States state of Delaware. Because Delaware is a popular haven for corporations, the Court has developed a worldwide reputation as a respected source of corporate law decisions, particularly in the area of mergers and acquisitions.

<i>Canada (AG) v Lavell</i> 1974 Supreme Court of Canada case

Canada (AG) v Lavell, [1974] S.C.R. 1349, was a landmark 5–4 Supreme Court of Canada decision holding that Section 12(1)(b) of the Indian Act did not violate the respondents' right to "equality before the law" under Section 1 (b) of the Canadian Bill of Rights. The two respondents, Lavell and Bédard, had alleged that the impugned section was discriminatory under the Canadian Bill of Rights by virtue of the fact that it deprived Indian women of their status for marrying a non-Indian, but not Indian men.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">History of the Supreme Court of Canada</span>

The Supreme Court of Canada was founded in 1875 and has served as the final court of appeal in Canada since 1949. Its history may be divided into three general eras. From its inception in 1875 until 1949, the Court served as an intermediate appellate court subject to appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Britain. Following 1949, the Court gained importance and legitimacy as the court of last resort in Canada, establishing a greater role for the Canadian judiciary. In 1982, the introduction of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms significantly changed the role of the Court in Canadian society, by providing the Court with greater powers of oversight over Parliament and through formal recognition of civil rights including aboriginal rights and equality rights.

The Manitoba Court of Appeal is the court of appeal in, and the highest court of, the Canadian province of Manitoba. It hears criminal, civil, and family law cases, as well as appeals from various administrative boards and tribunals.

MacDonald v Vapor Canada Ltd, [1977] 2 S.C.R. 134 is a leading constitutional decision of the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) on the Trade and Commerce power under section 91(2) of the Constitution Act, 1867.

<i>Arnold v Teno</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Arnold v Teno, [1978] 2 SCR 287 is a leading tort case from the Supreme Court of Canada. This decision was part of a trilogy of personal injury cases including Andrews v Grand & Toy Alberta Ltd (1978) and Thornton v Prince George School Board (1978).

A judicial opinion is a form of legal opinion written by a judge or a judicial panel in the course of resolving a legal dispute, providing the decision reached to resolve the dispute, and usually indicating the facts which led to the dispute and an analysis of the law used to arrive at the decision.

McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, 514 U.S. 334 (1995), is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that an Ohio statute prohibiting anonymous campaign literature is unconstitutional because it violates the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which protects the freedom of speech. In a 7–2 decision authored by Justice John Paul Stevens, the Court found that the First Amendment protects the decision of an author to remain anonymous.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">White Court (justices)</span> Period of the US Supreme Court from 1910 to 1921

The White Court refers to the Supreme Court of the United States from 1910 to 1921, when Edward Douglass White served as the Chief Justice of the United States. White, who had been an associate justice since 1894, succeeded Melville Fuller as Chief Justice after Fuller's death, and White served as Chief Justice until his own death a decade later. He was the first sitting associate justice to be elevated to Chief justice in the Court's history. He was succeeded by the former president William Howard Taft.

<i>Valin v Langlois</i> Canadian constitutional law decision – 1879

Valin v Langlois is a Canadian constitutional law decision from the Supreme Court of Canada, concerning the jurisdiction of the federal Parliament over federal elections, as well as the constitutional jurisdiction of the provincial superior courts. The Court held that the Parliament of Canada has sole jurisdiction to enact laws regulating federal elections, including provisions for controverted elections. The Court also held that the provincial superior courts have general jurisdiction over questions of federal and provincial law, and that Parliament could give provincial courts jurisdiction to apply federal laws.

References

  1. L'Heureux-Dubé, Claire. "The Dissenting Opinion: Voice of the Future?" 38 Osgoode Hall L.J. 495 at 500
  2. McCormick, Peter. "The Political Jurisprudence of Hot Potatoes" (2002) 13 Nat'l J. Const. L. 271 at 176
  3. Bzdera, Andre. "Comparative Analysis of Federal High Courts: A Political Theory of Judicial Review" (1993) 26 Canadian Journal of Political Science 3 at 25
  4. McCormick, Peter. "The Supervisory Role of the Supreme Court of Canada: Analysis of Appeals from Provincial Courts of Appeal, 1949-1990" (1992), 3(2d) Supreme Court Law Review 1, at p. 27.