Canada's Balance of Power: Judiciary vs. Legislature

A process where courts assess the constitutionality of laws and can strike them down if they violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

A section in the Charter that allows the government to limit Charter rights if they are justified and reasonable, using the Oakes Test.

A test used in court to decide if a government-imposed limitation on a Charter right is reasonable and justified.

The power of the judiciary to interpret laws and apply them to specific cases, potentially changing their meaning.

The relationship between the judiciary, legislative, and executive branches in terms of their power and influence.

When the judicial branch has more power than the legislative branch, potentially undermining legislative intent.

The power of the legislature to create and pass laws, representing the will of the people.

unintended or unexpected consequences of judicial interpretation.

The "notwithstanding clause" of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, allowing legislation to bypass certain Charter rights for up to five years.

A legal principle where interpretations of the constitution can evolve over time to reflect social changes.

The principle that elected representatives are accountable to the people they represent.

The situation where the judiciary branch has a disproportionate influence on policy compared to elected officials.

The belief that allowing courts to frequently overturn legislation can erode public trust in democracy.

The situation where courts are increasingly involved in resolving contentious issues, leading to a potential decline in the role of legislatures in making policy.

The potential for courts to impose significant policy changes that may not have been adequately debated by elected representatives.

The belief that the judiciary plays a vital role in safeguarding the rights of marginalized groups, particularly when legislatures are hesitant or unable to act.

The argument that the legislative branch, being directly accountable to the public, should be the primary driver of policy change.

The potential for excessive reliance on the courts to address societal issues, potentially weakening democracy if legislatures become less active.

The idea that Section 33 could be used constructively to promote accountability and collaboration between branches of government.

The principle of promoting a more balanced approach to rights protection by fostering cooperation between the legislative and judicial branches.

The role of the judiciary in protecting individual rights, even in situations where legislatures are hesitant to act.

The argument that while judicial decisions may provide critical protections for marginalized groups, over-reliance on the courts to drive change can undermine democratic governance.