A 1985 case about driving with a suspended licence helped turn one short provision of the Charter into one of the most powerful tools of judicial review in Canada.

Section 7 protects life, liberty and security of the person, and says those rights cannot be taken away except in accordance with the “principles of fundamental justice.”

In B.C. Motor Vehicles, the Supreme Court laid the groundwork for an extensive expansion of the meaning and principles of fundamental justice beyond procedural fairness, in ways that could constrain the substance of legislation itself. In the decades since, section 7 has played a central role in cases dealing with prostitution, assisted suicide and euthanasia, supervised drug consumption, and, more recently, disputes over homeless encampments and bike lanes.

Mark Mancini and Asher Honickman argue that B.C. Motor Vehicles got a lot right in the case immediately before it. But they also argue that the Court made important mistakes that opened the door to a much broader—and much more controversial—role for judges in Canadian public policy. They propose sound reforms in their commentary on the topic to right the jurisprudence in this crucial domain.

We discuss these reforms, along with broader questions of sound judicial interpretation and striving for a healthier balance between courts and legislatures that we think is needed in the years ahead.

Website

YouTube

Podcast platforms