Talk:Supreme Court of Canada

Introductory Paragraph
I added the language about the potential application of the notwithstanding clause pursuant to Section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The article states that decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada serve as the "ultimate expression and application of Canadian law," but that is manifestly incorrect, given the existence of the clause, and the actions that has been taken under it, particularly by the province of Quebec.John Paul Parks (talk) 05:36, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Untitled
Please note that Crown copyright in Canada is not the same as US government copyright which generally allows people to copy government documents without permission. I noticed that some of the material seemed to be pasted from the Canadian government web site. I've tried to rewrite it so that it is not a direct quote.Alex756 00:01 May 6, 2003 (UTC) -- Removed line about "thus the Canadian system is different from that of the United States". The Canadian court system is different from that of the United States, but that sentence was right after a line that said that provincial courts had general jurisdiction while federal courts had limited jurisdiction. In this respect, the US and Canada are the same. That sentence needed to go elsewhere. Roadrunner 09:04, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Roadrunner, I'm not sure what you're saying here. You're probably correct but perhaps your input needs clarification. In Canada, federal courts do have limited jurisdiction, with the exception of the Supreme Court, which has appellate jurisdiction over ALL matters (provincial and federal). This is somewhat different from the American system, where their Supreme Court does not enjoy full appelate juristiction over some state matters. For example, in criminal law cases, which is state law in the U.S., the final court of appeal (absent constitutional issues) is the appellate court of the state in question.Loomis51 21:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Except that a true "provincial court" has no inherent jurisdiction whatsoever. The superior courts of each province (the *only* courts in Canada with inherent jurisdiction) - so-called section 96 courts - are populated with federally-appointed judges.

"Overreaching" decisions
The article current contains the following text:

"Attitudes among many English Canadians changed when the Privy Council made various unpopular decisions in the 1930s, striking down several overreaching federal legislative initiatives."

The Privy Council thought the initiatives were "overreaching," that's why they struck them down; however, most Canadians didn't think they were overreaching, that's why the Supreme Court was established.

The description "overreaching" is a relative term to apply to a law; what's overreach to you is not to me.

The descriptive term introduces bias into this article and I propose to delete it.Mcattell (talk) 18:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Appointment of Judges
To avoid have to continue to go back and forth on the issue of who appoints judges, I offer the following bit of evidence: "The Supreme Court consists of the Chief Justice of Canada and eight puisne Judges appointed by the Governor in Council from among superior court judges or from among barristers of at least ten years' standing at the Bar of a province or territory." Source: www.scc-csc.gc.ca/faq/faq/index_e.asp#f12. "Governor-in-Council" means the governor general on advice from the cabinet. HistoryBA 15:35, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * If you read any newspaper in the country or pay any attention to the political dialouge of Canada, it is clear that the Prime Minister of Canada makes the decision over who is appointed to the Surpreme Court. "Formally" it may be the cabinet, but the 40-some odd members of the cabinet do not in practice have any influence in who gets chosen. It's the Prime Minister's decision, and to suggest otherwise is pointlessly mis-leading about something that should be very clear. user:J.J.
 * I'm going to have to side with HistoryBA on this one. The fact that the Prime Minister often has the last say is a matter of party politics, not Canadian law. To say that the prime minister appoints judges has no basis in law. The fact of the matter is he as no enforceable right to make appointments and it would be misleading to suggest otherwise. --PullUpYourSocks 02:30, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree, officially judges are appointed by the Governor in Council I believe. The Prime Minister isn't even in the constitution. --[[Image:Ottawa flag.png|20px]] Spinboy 02:39, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
 * First, I have to object to J.J.'s snide opening comment, "If you read any newspaper in the country or pay any attention to the political dialouge of Canada, it is clear that the Prime Minister of Canada makes the decision over who is appointed to the Surpreme Court." I do read newspapers and follow the political dialogue.  But newspapers are not always right.  The Cabinet -- or at least certain cabinet ministers -- do exert some influence over the appointments.  The prime minister appoints senior ministers in each province, largely to get their advice on organizational and patronage issues.  He does not operate in a political vacuum.  HistoryBA 22:37, 19 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Then at least I'm going to write "The Governor General appoints the judges based on the reccomendation of the Prime Minister, who is expected to act within the consultation of his cabinet." To blatantly eliminate any mention of the Prime Minister in the opening sentence is rather deceptive in my mind, it paints a picture of a Canadian political system we may wish exists, rather than the one that actually does. Nevermind what the constitution says, the Canadian constitution contains huge amounts of language that reveals very little about the day-to-day reality of how the government operates. We may as well start the article on the Prime Minister of Canada by saying "there is no Prime Minister of Canada" since according to the constitution, there isn't. user:J.J.


 * Can anyone provide a verifiable source for the following statement? "Under Canadian law, the Governor General appoints all justices of the Supreme Court of Canada on the recommendation of the Prime Minister. This is in accordance with an Order in Council dating to 1936, which delegated the Cabinet's jurisdiction to the Prime Minister."  HistoryBA 00:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what all the fuss is about. The plain fact is that for all practical purposes, the PM and the Justice Minister appoint Supreme Court judges. Of course the written letter of the Constitution leaves this power to the Governor General. But to imply that the Governor General has any real input is to misunderstand the Parliamentary system as it has evolved in Canada and the U.K.


 * If one were to read the Canadian Constitution literally, one would get the impression that the Governor General is some all-powerful figure that has the power to not only appoint Supreme Court Justices, but pass any law as she sees fit. This would be similar to the notion that the Queen of England could order: "Off with his head!" and her orders would be dutifully obeyed. This is clearly not the case. It would take paragraphs to explain why this is so. If prompted, I'd be pleased to elaborate.Loomis51 22:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps it would be a reasonable (and more accurate) compromise from the point-of-view of all parties involved if we were to use the following:
 * Justices of the Supreme Court of Canada are appointed by the Governor-in-Council — that is, the Governor General makes appointments based on the advice of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada. By tradition and convention, only the Cabinet advises the Governor General (as opposed to the entire Privy Council — technically speaking, the Cabinet is only a standing committee in the larger council), and this advice is usually expressed to the Queen's representative exclusively through a consultation with the Prime Minister.
 * I hope that this suggestion would perhaps be seen as a reasonable, and accurate, alternative. :) FiveParadox 07:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

CPAC appeal
Can somebody explain why there's a Canadian Politics sidebar on the Court page? Or move it to Government of Canada, or Prime Ministers, or someplace? Trekphiler 20:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Amicus
I'm not sure where to put these. First, as I understand it, SCoC is subject to Parliament in a way SCotUS isn't, since SCoC was created by Parliament, not by Constitution. Second, SCoC is rare (unique?) among hi courts in allowing cameras. (Proceedings are recorded for rebroadcast by CPAC, our equivalent of C-SPAN.) Trekphiler 20:53, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * While it's true that the SCC was created by an Act of Parliament, I wouldn't go so far as to say that it is subject to the federal government. The Court is undoubtedly protected by both the constitutional principle of the "Rule of Law" and by constitutional convention. --PullUpYourSocks 22:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

One of the unbreakable precepts of the Canadian parliamentary system is, to paraphrase, that "no Parliament is bound by its predecessor nor is it binding on its successor" when it comes to Acts of Parliament. What Parliament has originally created with an 1875 Act of Parliament and affirmed most recently with the Supreme Court Act of 1985 can similarily be eliminated. Constitutional convention does not protect the existence of the court as there are more than ample examples showing continued parliamentary assertion of supremacy over the court. The United States differs significantly in this regard with an SOP principle with a constitutionally enshrined Supreme Court. Canada lacks both of these which is not suprising given the principles of parliamentary supremacy. MrBobBacklund (talk) 19:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)MrBobBacklund


 * Not that this is really the place to debate this issue out, but it's generally considered (with some exceptions such as the notwithstanding clause) that Canada is constitutionally supreme, not parliamentary supreme. Added to this is the Supreme Court's decisions that unwritten principles of the constitution, such as the rule of law, can have legal impact. Singularity42 (talk) 15:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Precedent
Should we not have at least a mention of precedents being set for lower courts, and whether or not the Supreme Court must follow it's own precedents?
 * There is a description of precendent in the Canadian legal system article, but perhaps a passing mention is in order.PullUpYourSocks 02:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Clean lead-in
I cleaned up the lead in a bit. There was too much minor information in the first few lines, that they had to get shifted down. In particular I removed:
 * "When handling Quebec civil law cases the court is careful to have them reviewed by the three civil law judges that are always on the court, although judges from the common law provinces have written judgments in Quebec cases, and judges from Quebec often write judgment in cases from the common law provinces."

I can't find a place to put it in and it definitely does not belong in the article lead-in. --PullUpYourSocks 02:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Political patterns section
This section seems rather slanted against the Chretien government, and doesn't make sense if you look at the composition of the Court. Traditionally, there are three Quebec judges (mandated because of Quebec's civil law), three Ontarians, two Westerners, and one Maritimer (and the Maritime seat does not alternate back and forth between NB and NS exclusively, because Louis Henry Davies of PEI was once Chief Justice).

The section mentions the appointments of Louis LeBel, Louise Arbour, Morris Fish, and Marie Deschamps as defying regional balance. How? LeBel, Fish and Deschamps were appointed to fill the Quebec seats, as they were the ones vacant, and Arbour, although born in Montreal, had strong roots in Ontario (including teaching at York University and sitting on an Ontario Court of Appeal), and filled one of the Ontario seats (in turn filled by either Abella or Charron when she left). Look at the current court: 3 Quebeckers (Fish, Deschamps, LeBel), three Ontarians (Binnie, Abella, Charron), one Maritimer (Bastarche), one Westerner (McLachlin), and the vacant seat about to be filled by a Westerner (Rothstein).

The part about the Martin appointments is also unclear. It says they had similar opinions on SSM, and then goes off about marijuana possession, sexual harassment, and family court, making no connections between any of this. CaptainCanada 21:42, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Funny. I never took a good look at that section. You're right there are certainly problems with it. Most obviously, it makes several major claims of the composition of the court without a single cite. I'm especially suspicious of the part citicizing Abella and Charron for their "controversial" views on the definition of marriage. Legally speaking, there is nothing radical about reading in same-sex couples into the defintion of marriage. Six Courts of Appeal all found that it included same sex couples, so I'd hardly call such views as abnormal. Honestly, without any substantial evidence of any of the claims, I think the whole section should go. --PullUpYourSocks

Selection of judges from Quebec
I've read consistently in the newspapers that the requirement of having three judges from Quebec on the Court is a convention and not mandated by legislation or the constitution. The reference used just points to the Wikipedia article for the Supreme Court Act and not the Act itself. Please verify that such a provision actually occurs in the Act.

G. Csikos, 23 November 2006

Answered my own question -- it is indeed mentioned in the statute. I changed the reference to the statute itself rather than the article about it.

G. Csikos, 23 November 2006

Spelling Mistake fixed
I fixed a spelling mistake for the caption of SCC courtroom. It was called: coutroom. 70.64.78.207 (talk) 02:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Can-pol w.jpg
Image:Can-pol w.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The role of the Supreme Court
The "The role of the Supreme Court" section in the article is very general to the Court system of Canada, and simple reference should be made to that article. This would eliminate most of the first paragraph in this section. Likewise, the third paragraph is general information about references while the fourth paragraph is about constitutional issues. Clearly we can write a section devoted exclusively to the Supreme Court's role within this framework without repeating general information available in other articles. Canadian Copy Editor (talk) 04:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Salary incorrect
From the SCC web site FAQ: http://www.scc-csc.gc.ca/faq/faq/index-eng.asp

11. What is the annual salary of a Supreme Court Judge?

Chief Justice: $361,300 Puisne Judges: $334,500 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.108.67.162 (talk) 22:56, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Be bold!. (Although I might get around to fixing it when I get a chance if no one else does.) Singularity42 (talk) 22:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Fixed. -- RP459  Talk/Contributions 23:52, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Reworked format
This article previously had a lot of dense prose. The headings were vague and non-descriptive. I reworked the headings and sub-headings, and readers can now glance through the article more quickly to get an overview of the subject, and can choose to read the ancillary articles for more depth and detail. --Paul63243 (talk) 10:06, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Constitution
The constitution actually does not require the existence of the Supreme Court. It only regulates at amendments to the composition are to be constitutional amendments by the unanimous clause. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gingeroscar (talk • contribs) 01:34, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Photo inside library?
I have taken a photo inside the library of the Supreme Court. Would there be any interest in having it added to the article and placed at the bottom, alongside the existing four pictures? /wia  /tlk   /cntrb  00:27, 31 October 2015 (UTC) : That would be nice. I dream of Maple (talk) 05:43, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:25, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Supreme Court of Canada badge.png

Judicial review
Why does the Supreme Court have judicial review? People argue about whether it is a good thing or not, but the court has it today. But in the British legal tradition, courts don´t have the power to void a law on constitutional grounds. The Secretary of State for the Colonies might order assent be withheld, same for the provinces vs the governor in council, but the constitution itself doesn´t give any court this power via its text. Canada doesn´t have a famous Marbury vs Madison case that should point to this doctrine being accepted either. I can´t figure out when or how the courts got this authority, especially if this concept predates the end of the use of the power of disallowance. Not even the Charter allows courts to simply void a law, it just gives them the ability to fashion remedies in general. 2604:3D09:757F:EC30:2801:A080:FF7E:F637 (talk) 09:27, 28 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Prior to Confederation in 1867, the courts of the British North American colonies got their powers from British laws. That meant that the courts had to measure local colonial laws against British laws, and the British laws took priority.  When Canada was created in 1867, that same principle applied:  the British North America Act was a statute of the British Parliament, and the courts in Canada had to apply it.  If a law passed by the Canadian Parliament or a provincial legislature exceeded the powers set out in the BNA Act, the courts would hold it to be unconstitutional, because the BNA Act took priority.  In 1982, with the Patriation of the Constitution, the BNA Act (now called the Constitution Act, 1867) ceased to be considered a British law in Canada;  now it was explicitly part of the Constitution, along with the Constitution Act, 1982 and the Charter.  The Constitution Act, 1982, s. 52, says that the Constitution is the supreme law of Canada, and any law that conflicts with the Constitution is of no force or effect, to the extent of the inconsistency. There's never been a need for an explicit court decision to that effect, because it was implicit prior to 1982, and now is explicit. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 14:39, 28 May 2023 (UTC)