University of Toronto Law School Faculty Blog

Prof. Ed Morgan - "The difference between lunchtime prayer and a Jesus T-shirt"

This commentary was first published by Prof. Ed Morgan in The Globe and Mail on May 9, 2012.

A public school in Toronto thinks a clergyman can be invited to conduct Islamic prayers at lunchtime on school grounds. As a school trustee explains it, “What we’re doing is what we should be doing as a school board and that is accommodating students’ needs no matter what their religion is.”

A public school in Chester Basin, N.S., thinks a student can be prohibited from wearing a T-shirt with a Christian message on school grounds. As school trustees explain it, “It is expected that students will not wear clothing with messages that may offend others’ beliefs, race, religion, culture or lifestyle.”

Does Canadian law really get such a failing grade?

Prof. Ed Morgan: "‘Bonus’ zoning and the development approval game"

This commentary was first published in The Lawyers Weekly on August 26, 2011.

What does a property owner do to build a high density condo/retail development on its parcel in Brampton, Ontario - the heartland of suburban sprawl - or to build a low density subdivision on its green field in Markham, Ontario - the capital of 'new urbanist' design? It does what few applicants for a state-issued license would ever think of doing: it makes a deal.

As those in the field well know, deal-making is authorized under section 37 of the Planning Act. What Canadians lightly dub "bonuses", and Americans more darkly label "exactions", have become an integral part of the development approval game. For owners and communities, the game is one of materially high stakes; and for constitutional theorists, the struggle between an individual's rights and the collectivity's needs are as high as the normative stakes can get.

As a starting point, the courts have ensured that no personal gain can be bargained for by officials in a conflict position. Moreover, the Ontario Municipal Board has expressed the view that section 37 bargains must be "commensurate with the additional density or development rights" achieved in the application, and that city officials keep in mind that "the public should receive some tangible benefit." Beyond that, however, just about any deal goes.

Prof. Ran Hirschl publishes new book, "Constitutional Theocracy"

Prof. Ran Hirschl has published a new book, Constitutional Theocracy (Harvard University Press, 2010).

• Publisher's web page

From the publisher:

At the intersection of two sweeping global trends - the rise of popular support for principles of theocratic governance, and the spread of constitutionalism and judicial review - a new legal order has emerged: constitutional theocracy. It enshrines religion and its interlocutors as "a" or "the" source of legislation, and at the same time adheres to core ideals and practices of modern constitutionalism. A unique hybrid of apparently conflicting worldviews, values, and interests, constitutional theocracies thus offer an ideal setting-a "living laboratory" as it were-for studying constitutional law as a form of politics by other means. In this book, Ran Hirschl combines insights from legal theory, economics, theology, and political sociology with a rigorous comparative analysis of religion-and-state jurisprudence from dozens of countries worldwide to explore the evolving role of constitutional law and courts in a non-secularist world.

Counter-intuitively, Hirschl argues that the constitutional enshrinement of religion is a rational, prudent strategy that allows opponents of theocratic governance to talk the religious talk without walking most of what they regard as theocracy's unappealing, costly walk. Many of the jurisdictional, enforcement, and cooptation advantages that gave religious legal regimes an edge in the pre-modern era, are now aiding the modern state and its laws in its effort to contain religion. The "constitutional" in a constitutional theocracy thus fulfils the same restricting function it carries out in a constitutional democracy: it brings theocratic governance under check, and assigns to constitutional law and courts the task of a bulwark against the threat of radical religion.

Constitutional Theocracy further demonstrates that precisely because the canonical constitutional scripture has certain religion-like aspects to it, it may be better positioned than blunter, more forceful means, to effectively control and pacify principles of theocratic governance. In that respect, Hirschl argues, constitutionalism might very well emerge, or perhaps has already emerged as tomorrow's "opiate of the masses".

Khadr and Prerogative Power

(from Spring 2010 Rights Review 3:1)

by David Schneiderman

What one might call “older” constitutional law has been very much in the news lately with the two controversial prorogations by Prime Minister Harper; the Government’s failure to disclose documents relating to Afghan detainees being released by Canadians to face torture; and the Supreme Court of Canada failing to provide a meaningful remedy for the ongoing breach of Omar Khadr’s Charter rights. Khadr, a Canadian citizen, has been held at Guantanamo Bay since 2002 on terrorism and related charges after being captured on Afghan soil. The Court found a serious breach of Mr. Khadr’s Charter rights yet chose not to tread into the realm of foreign affairs by directing the Government of Canada to seek his release from US custody. Though I focus solely here on the Khadr case, the thread common to all of these events is that they all concern exercises of the royal prerogative.

What is the royal prerogative? It is the unfettered discretion that once ran the machinery of government – Charles I described it as absolute and beyond reproach and was later beheaded – of which little remains. Despite the whittling away by statute and practice, what remains of the Crown prerogative is, nevertheless, significant.

"How to Tame a Prerogative"

by David Schneiderman

From The Globe and Mail (March 10, 2010)

Opposition efforts to get at the facts about Afghan detainee abuse appear not to have entirely abated, despite former Supreme Court of Canada justice Frank Iacobucci's appointment to advise the government about releasing documents. Prime Minister Stephen Harper's constitutional footwork certainly did not do the trick. Prorogation simply will not erase the stain of Canadians handing over Afghan detainees to face torture, if accusations are true. The break also should not allow him to escape the House's motion calling for uncensored documents relating to the abuse allegations.

Up until the day before the motion in December, the government side claimed that a variety of statutes legally barred it from releasing documents that threatened national security. It was only then that Carolyn Kobernick, assistant deputy minister in the Department of Justice, acknowledged that there was no statutory basis for refusing to deliver unredacted documents.

Instead, Ms. Kobernick claimed that the government, when making decisions regarding disclosure, would be guided by “the values underlying Parliament's intention in these provisions” – namely, “to protect the national security of Canada from harm by the unauthorized disclosure of sensitive information.” So there was no legal bar to the production of unredacted documents, only a discretion guided by values underlying the law.

Is this a constitutionally sufficient reason to ignore the expressed wishes of House members that these documents are delivered up pronto? Unless the opposition parties take further steps, it may be enough to just say no.

Prof. Ed Morgan - "It's a legal maze for Canadian authorities abroad"

This commentary by Prof. Ed Morgan was first published in The Globe and Mail on May 27, 2009.

Canadians may be surprised to learn a few things about our constitutional law.

First, the military owes no duty toward detainees arrested by us and turned over to a foreign state for custody.

Second, our intelligence service does owe a duty toward prisoners taken into custody by a foreign state and turned over to us for interrogation.

Third, our diplomats are obliged to intervene with a foreign legal system that fails to live up to our domestic standards of punishment.

And fourth, our police are free to comply with a foreign legal system that fails to live up to our domestic standards of search and seizure.

When it comes to the powers of the Canadian government abroad, each new court ruling makes us wonder if the judges took the time to read the last one. How did this confused state of affairs come to be?

Ed Morgan - "In Yellowknife, language rights go back on the menu"

First published in the Globe and Mail, April 21, 2009.

In taking on the chef who runs the famed Wildcat Cafe, Yellowknife's city council appears to have concocted a recipe for bringing Quebec-style language politics to the Northwest Territories. In the process, it has given us the basis for a constitutional crise du jour.

The iconic eatery in Yellowknife's Old Town sports a log cabin veneer, rough wooden benches and floors, and a pedigree that harks back to the 1930s prospectors who founded it and the miners and bush pilots who made it a frontier landmark. The building was designated a heritage site in the early 1990s and it has been leased out by a municipal committee to licensed operators since reopening as a popular tourist destination in the late 1970s.

Book Launch and Panel Discussion: Parliamentary Democracy in Crisis - Live Webcast

The David Asper Centre for Constitutional Rights will be hosting a book launch for the new book Parliamentary Democracy in Crisis: The Dilemmas, Choices and Future of Parliamentary Government in Canada on Tuesday April 21 at 4:30 pm.

The book launch will include a panel discussion on the future of Canada's democracy: lessons learned and where to we go from here.  This is the third in the series on the topic and celebrates the book that came out of our December 5th event on the Governor General's decision to prorogue Parliament. Panelists include Peter Hogg, Michael Valpy, David Cameron and Barbara Cameron.

The event will be webcast live starting shortly after 4:30 pm.

Click here April 21 at 4:30 to watch the webcast.

Click here to find out more about the event.

Click here to find out more about and purchase the book.

Alarie: Charter Decisions in the McLachlin Era

Andrew Green and I have just posted a new paper on SSRN in which we analyze 105 Charter decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada.  Here's the abstract:

This paper examines how justices on the Supreme Court of Canada voted in Charter appeals between 2000 and 2009. Charter appeals, at least in popular belief (and possibly also in theory), have the greatest potential to reveal voting that is influenced by extra-legal policy preferences. Confining the analysis to the time during which Chief Justice McLachlin has led the Court aids in controlling for the effects of a particular Chief Justice in assessing the roles of ideology and consensus.

Several of the Court's members have exhibited sharply different voting proclivities in s.15 (equality rights) appeals as compared with Charter claims made in the context of criminal law appeals (and, indeed, other Charter appeals). This finding suggests that at least some of the justices on the Court have been influenced by policy preferences on at least some occasions in discrete areas of Charter rights adjudication. On the other hand, it also suggests that judicial policy preferences are richer and significantly more nuanced than can adequately be captured by a simple "right"-"left" or "conservative"-"liberal" characterization of these policy preferences. The paper discusses a number of implications of the analysis and findings.

Here is one of the graphics from the paper, showing estimated ideal points of the justices overall, in equality cases, and in criminal appeals featuring a Charter rights violation.  (The ideal point distributions were calculated using the Martin-Quinn method popularized in the study of the policy preferences of the justices of the US Supreme Court):

It is particularly interesting to note that although Justice Major and Chief Justice McLachlin are both in the centre of the distributions when all Charter appeals are considered together, Justice Major is an accidental centrist in that he is quite amenable to finding Charter rights violations in criminal appeals and disinclined to find in favour of claimants in equality rights appeals.  Chief Justice McLachlin, on the other hand, is firmly planted in the centre with respect to each of the areas we examined.

Follow the download link at this page to access the full-text in pdf (and to have a look at some more revealing graphics).

Lorraine E. Weinrib: Shooting down polygamy law not necessarily a slam dunk

The following commentary by Professor Lorraine Weinrib was published in the Toronto Star, January 13, 2009.

The attorney general of British Columbia has announced criminal prosecutions against two leaders of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints for breach of the Criminal Code prohibition against polygamy. The decision to prosecute follows years of deliberation on the appropriate response to harms attributed to polygamy as practised within the community in Bountiful, B.C.

Examination of some of the concerns raised in the media over the past week may provide some clarity as the prosecution proceeds.