Evan at 11: Parliamentary vs. Constitutional Supremacy
Evan Bunkis and Nicole Wambolt
Summary: Discussion is the root of solving problems and recognizing issues when they arise. In this week Evan at Eleven, Evan Bunkis and Nicole Wambolt discuss how the judicial and legislative branches of Canada create a so called “dialogue” to address critical issues and evolve the meaning of the constitution within Canada. We do this through examining academic texts surrounding the topic of legislative and judicial dialogue theory, looking into a contemporary case involving dialogue, and lastly diving into the awareness of charter rights today. These concepts are sure to invoke a great discussion and we hope you enjoy our podcast episode.
Bibliography
Bader, V. (2016). Parliamentary Supremacy versus Judicial Supremacy: How can adversarial judicial, public, and political dialogue be institutionalized? Utrecht Law Review 12(1), 183.
Belanger, Claude. “Supremacy of Parliament and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.” Faculty.marianopolis.edu, 26 Feb. 2001, faculty.marianopolis.edu/c.belanger/quebechistory/federal/parl.htm.
Canada (Prime Minister) v. Khadr, 2010 SCC 3
CBC. (2017). On Khadr, Trudeau says Charter protects all Canadians ‘even when it is uncomfortable’.
Collins v Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, 2005 FC 1431.
Dixon, Rosalind. "The Supreme Court of Canada, Charter Dialogue and Deference," University of Chicago Public Law & Legal Theory Working Paper, No. 284 (2009).
Dodek, Adam. “Adam Dodek: Canadians Don't Know Much about the Constitution.” National Post, 17 Apr. 2013, nationalpost.com/opinion/adam-dodek-book-excerpt.
Grover, Sonja. (2010). The Supreme Court of Canada's declining of its jurisdiction in not ordering the repatriation of a Canadian Guantanamo detainee: implications of the case for our understanding of international humanitarian law. The International Journal of Human Rights 15(3).
Harel, A., Shinar, A. (2012). Between judicial and legislative supremacy: A cautious defense of constrained judicial review. Oxford University Press, 958-959
Hiebert, Janet L. The Notwithstanding Clause: Why Non-Use Does Not Necessarily Indicate Compliance with Judicial Norms. cpsa-acsp.ca/documents/conference/2016/Hiebert.pdf.
Roach, Kent. Constitutional and Common Law Dialogues between the Supreme Court and Canadian Legislatures (2001). (2001) 80 Canadian Bar Review 481-533. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2129849
Roach, Kent. (2006). Dialogue or defiance: Legislative reversals of Supreme Court decisions in Canada and the United States. International Journal of Constitutional Law 4(2), 347-370.