The court system of Canada may have been established by acts of parliament over the years since Canada became a confederation, but it needs to be held more accountable for its actions.
The purpose of the different levels of court is to handle cases where the law is involved on many different levels, however, it appears the courts are not only interpreting existing laws but enacting new ones.
First, in simple terms, the court system is structured from the Supreme Court of Canada, Provincial Courts of Appeal and the Federal Court of Appeal, Provincial/Territorial Supreme Courts and Provincial Courts. There are other arms of the court system such as the Tax Court of Canada and the Military Courts.
Provincial and territorial courts deal with most criminal offences. Small claims courts fall under the jurisdiction of the provincial and territorial courts. Each province and territory has superior courts known by various names such as Court of Queen’s Bench. These courts hear the most serious civil cases including divorce actions. The Superior Courts of the provinces and territories act as a court of first appeal for the underlying court system provinces and territories maintain. Although the courts are administered by the provinces and territories, the judges are appointed by the federal government.
Each province and territory has a Court of Appeal division, which, not always, but generally, has three judges who sit as a panel. The Nunavut Court of Justice combines the power of the superior trial court and the territorial court so the same judge can hear all cases arising in the territory.
The Federal Courts were created by an Act of Parliament and can only deal with matters specified in federal statutes (laws).
The Supreme Court of Canada is the final court of appeal from all other Canadian courts. The Supreme Court consists of a Chief Justice and eight other judges, all appointed by the federal government. The Supreme Court Act requires at least three judges must come from Quebec. Traditionally, of the remaining six other judges, three are from Ontario, two are from Western Canada, and one is from the Atlantic provinces.
Personally, I do not feel this is fair representation of judges on the Supreme Court in Canada. In my opinion, the Supreme Court membership should be comprised of a relatively equal balance, namely, one justice appointed from British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec and the Northern Territories, and two from the Maritime provinces alternating with each appointment. This formula, I would submit, would be more reflective of the contemporary socio-economic realities of the national identity, and therefore, much more fair than the existing formula, in which Ontario and Quebec receive the lion’s share of representation of the court, while the rest of country is forced to share the remaining seats on the bench.
How are these judges chosen to sit on the Supreme Court? There is an advisory panel which screens the candidates and then advises the Prime Minister, who makes the final decision. It must be remembered these judges are appointed and not anointed as some of them would want us to believe. Judges are supposed to follow the law as laid out by Parliament. They supposedly interpret
the law as is written or as they understand it to meanDelete? . Are the Supreme Court judges’ decisions always right? I would suggest in many cases, one wonders how they arrived at their conclusions.
Judges are supposed to apply the law as parliament has structured the statute. Do they? It appears there are many instances when judges do not. Are courts becoming activist and thus are legislating through different interpretations of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
If the government of the day, which is elected by the people, sets out laws by Acts of Parliament, and the Supreme Court goes against the elected government, it would appear the Court is opposing the wishes of society.
It would seem as though, on several occasions, the Supreme Court acts as a legislative rather than a judicial body. An example of the way courts have acted is in British Columbia where the Supreme Court of that province granted Gloria Taylor, a victim of Lou Gehrig’s Disease, the right to a physician-assisted suicide. If a doctor had assisted in Gloria’s death, would he or she not be guilty of manslaughter or similar? This ruling was appealed by the federal government, which asked the B.C Court of Appeals to suspend Taylor’sGloria's right to die, which the court refused to do.
Is this granting the right to die in violation of the Canadian Constitution? It is my understanding this is against the Constitution of Canada. Did the Supreme Court of B.C. act outside of the law? How awful. (Gloria Taylor passed away unassisted just recently).
In several cases there are law-related issues that should be debated more fully in parliament that have ended up in court, possibly because the opposition parties do not have the intestinal fortitude to challenge the government more thoroughly.
The Charter states courts can strike down laws, not propose new ones or change them. Somehow it appears as if the courts are making new laws.
Thankfully judges must retire at age 75, and even that in itself may seem a bit long. Should those on the Supreme Court of Canada as well as those serving on the provincial Supreme Court benches be appointed for perhaps a 10-year term and then be retired from the bench and be replaced by another judge? It is food for thought.
