Judicial Activism: Threat to Canadian Democracy and Freedom

In his novel, “Against Judicial Activism: The Decline of Freedom and Democracy in Canada,” author Rory Leishman explains how judges are essentially “let loose” on the judicial system, and are given freedom to create and interpret any laws they wish, right under society’s nose. Leishman writes, “Today, Canadians are living in a quasi-Orwellian nightmare, where freedom often means slavery and ignorance strengthens activist judges.” Judicial activism, in essence, can be described as the following: “. . . the tendency of courts to invalidate laws enacted by duly elected legislatures, since doing so ostensibly amounts to courts usurping the role of Parliament.” With such inconsistency in judges’ conclusions, the concept that citizens have no power

This also leads to dramatic inconsistencies, upsetting the justice system immensely.

The Supreme Court’s decisions on the sovereignty-association referendums of Quebec (1980 and 1995) are a prime example of this concept. On the issue of secession, the Court stated that “the right of other provinces and the federal government cannot deny the right of the government of Quebec to pursue secession, should a clear majority of the people of Quebec choose that goal.” However, the Court never distinctly defined what a “clear majority” was, and merely stated the following: “... it is for the political actors to determine what would constitute a clear majority on a clear question in the circumstances under which a future referendum vote may be taken.” In response to this vague statement, the Clarity Act was created, in hopes of resolving this hazy conclusion. This inconclusive decision reveals the uncertainty which may follow when judges act without

And being bound by precedent and subject to accountability via the appeal process helped ensure judges spoke for the law, not their political and social beliefs. The Charter did not set out to undo this enormously beneficial arrangement. It was intended merely to make our rights into a privileged form of law that overrode other kinds of law. The intention was a noble one. But the worm in the heart of the Charter apple has been the dawning realisation in the minds of lawyers, law professors and judges that they have unaccountable control over a document that trumps all other law. . . You can import your personal beliefs into the law merely by reinterpreting a word here, a concept there. The right of association becomes a right to strike. The right to life becomes the right to doctor-assisted