Translate aswanidatt.com
    Translate from:

    Translate to:

Questioning Our Judges

John D. Whyte

{{GA_Article.Images.Alttext$}}Marshall Rothstein at the parliamentary committee hearing to review his nomination to the Supreme Court of Canada. (February 27, 2006)

The retirements later this summer from the Supreme Court of Canada of Justices Ian Binnie and Louise Charron give Prime Minister Stephen Harper his third and fourth Supreme Court appointments.

Both the retiring justices are from Ontario and it is expected that both the new justices will be Ontario judges or lawyers. However, neither the Constitution nor legislation requires that there be three Ontario judges and, from the perspective of fair representation for jurisdictions and legal systems, it is not reasonable that Ontario has as many judges as all of the other seven common-law provinces. It is unlikely, though, that the Prime Minister will want to challenge a pattern of allocation that has been in place throughout the court’s history.

There is, however, a clear expectation — although not yet a constitutional convention — that Harper will need to meet. This is the question of whether it is prudent to have persons named to the Supreme Court appear at parliamentary hearings. Both Harper and his predecessor, Paul Martin, announced they intended to adopt this process, and the appointment of Justice Marshall Rothstein in 2006 was made subject to a parliamentary review.

On the naming of Justice Thomas Cromwell to the court in September 2008, the Prime Minister stated that the appointment would be reviewed by a House of Commons committee. However, in December the appointment was confirmed and Cromwell was sworn in without a hearing.

The reason given was that a general election was called soon after the initial announcement and, shortly after that, Parliament was suspended under the first of the controversial prorogations. Harper said the appointment needed to go forward to allow the court to meet its “vital constitutional mandate.”

There was some question whether this weak excuse revealed ambivalence toward the idea of parliamentary reviews of a candidate for appointment, but the June 3 throne speech contained a commitment to follow the hearing process.

The central question is whether parliamentary reviews of court appointments are valuable. The American experience of Senate confirmation hearings following presidential nominations for Supreme Court appointments leads some to believe that the political review of court appointees is destructive of the idea of judicial neutrality.

Certainly the American process has led to unseemly and unfair attacks on nominees. It has also failed to assess actual judicial worth. Robert Bork was an eminent constitutionalist with a superb intellectual grasp of the law but was rejected by the Senate; Clarence Thomas, who has proven to be a singularly unthoughtful — and consistently political — jurist, passed through the Senate process (although not with ease).

The process can also create false impressions. The current chief justice, John Roberts, convinced the Senate that his judicial philosophy was based on humility and restraint, but his judgments represent an extensive rewriting of constitutional standards.

Nevertheless, there is a good case for holding parliamentary reviews of Supreme Court appointees. The exercise tells Canadians something valuable about the legal process — that while legal decision-making is restrained by rules and precedent, it is at heart interpretive and thus draws on values, commitments and perceptions. Judicial judgment is human judgment, and character and integrity always lie near the heart of the judicial process.

The review process tends to focus on constitutional interpretation and it shows the degree to which each judge’s understandings of constitutional purposes — and the contexts in which they operate — determine court results.

The process reminds Canadians of the commitments to fairness, justice, equality and respect for minorities that are found in our basic laws, and this can engender an understanding of — and respect for — the rule of law and constitutional restraints.

Hearings create in politicians an appreciation of the difficulty and importance of Supreme Court decisions to the political community. Civil discussion at hearings can show how hard some of these decisions are to make — both as a matter of discovering the meaning of legal authorities and as a matter of public values and morality.

When the court makes decisions that politicians are unhappy with, as it certainly will, it will serve the nation well that political leaders will have had an opportunity to explore the nature of the judicial task and see its essential — and difficult — role in Canadian democracy.

Hearings make the court more visible as a key element of the Canadian legal process and, through this, the court and our law become more understandable, more human, more a part of our nation’s design and more respected.

John Whyte is Professor of Law Emeritus, Queen’s University.

 

Source: https://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/article/1012833–questioning-our-judges

 

Contact
Contact Us
905-755-0104

Toll Free: 1844DATTLAW (1-844-328-8529)

295 Matheson Blvd. East
Mississauga, Ontario
L4Z 1X8
map it
Nathan Forbes
Nathan Forbes
15:23 05 Jul 19
Aswani was introduced through a family friend and I was very pleased with his service. He was able to provide a better outcome then I had initially envisioned. Communication was great throughout the process. He is knowledgeable, professional and delivers. I would highly recommend him as legal counsel.read more
D Parmar
D Parmar
22:24 23 Jun 19
Aswani is a very professional and knowledgeable lawyer and has handled our case with utmost care and taking care of all minute details. Made us feel comfortable and kept us well informed. Highly recommend his service as a lawyer.read more
IRIS Consulting
IRIS Consulting
16:43 04 May 19
I strongly recommend Aswani to people who need legal consulting. He is extremely competent and familiar with the system. He has handled some complex matters efficiently that I’d give him 5 stars. Keep up the amazing work Aswani. BR/Anandread more
Ryan Wolf
Ryan Wolf
23:24 21 Apr 19
Aswani k. Datt was randomly selected to represent me in a legal matter. He was professional, efficient, kind, caring, accommodating and very patient. He promised a quick and speedy resolve on my matter. He delivered as promise. He is highly recommended, and i want to thank him for everything that he has done for me. He is a brilliant and wonderful lawyer!read more
Sharanbir Khudal
Sharanbir Khudal
23:01 18 Apr 19
An Absolutely intelligent officer of the law, and an even better human being. He makes you feel comfortable and confident in your situation and will find ways to get you to your hopeful results in manners which you will not expect. I recommend him to everyone and anyone who needs legal help, not once, but as many times as necessary. If you’ve run across him for your legal needs, don’t look further.read more
Zulfiqar Shah
Zulfiqar Shah
14:10 10 Apr 19
I am trying to find words to describe our experience with Mr. Aswani, I find myself pondering how to describe him. I find myself lost for words and a short precise description would be Brilliant and Professional Lawyer, Friendly person to deal with and whenever we met him there was always a warm friendly smile telling you to not to worry. Ones walks out with confidence that he has your back. These words are the minimum to describe him, at least from my experience. If for any reason anyone out there needs a Lawyer, I would extremely highly recommend Aswani K Dutt.read more
Ankur Gandhi
Ankur Gandhi
20:40 05 Mar 19
Best lawyer in town. Needed someone to represent me with my divorce case involving a child. He went above and beyond. Trust me you won't go wrong if he's your lawyer. And when he gives you an advise please take it because he's only thinking in best interest of his client.read more
Next Reviews