This course is is the capstone course for students with an interest in the area of law, politics and justice.  The course is intended to allow students to utilize the skills and insights they have developed during their years in university and to apply these to tackling current issues in the area of law, politics and justice.

During the first nine weeks of the course, students review excerpts of relevant literature in the law and politics area, and make class presentations.   Subjects will include recent controversies regarding human rights issues, socially divisive issues, aboriginal rights issues, the relation between democracy and judicial review in Canada and abroad, and judicial policy-making and impartiality.  The readings for the last three weeks of the course are selected by the students themselves, and students will have an opportunity to present a summary of their final papers.

Pre-/corequisites: None.  However, it is strongly recommended that students enrolling in this course will have completed at least 6 credits of course work in the law and politics area in the Department of Political Science or the Division of Social Science.

Format:  The class will meet weekly for a three-hour period to analyze and discuss assigned readings. Students will be required to take an active role in class discussion.

Minor Paper:   Students are required to write an 8-page (double spaced) minor paper analyzing the relation between law and politics, and making use of course materials covered during the first four weeks of class, which is due on February 3.

Major Paper:  On Jan. 27, each student must submit a detailed outline for a major paper. The paper must be on a subject relevant to law, politics and justice, and may not be on a subject which a student has written a paper on for another course without the permission of the course director. (For inspiration, see the list of books relevant to the course at the end of this outline.) The outline will be graded and will be worth 10% of the course grade.  Attached to the outline will be photocopies of readings relevant to the presentation that will be included in the Student Course Kit.  Each set of readings may not exceed 6 pages when photocopied, and must include the complete citation so that copyright permission can be obtained.

The paper itself must be presented to the class on March 16, 23 or 30.  Papers need not be completed by the presentation date.  However, the student must present a five minute summary of the draft paper.  The presentation must be accompanied by a one-page maximum executive summary; this summary plus the oral presentation is worth 10% of the final grade.  Following each presentation, there will be time for about 10 minutes of discussion.  Students will be able to use the results of the discussion to revise the paper prior to submission.

Final copies of papers MUST BE COMPLETED BY March 30.  (Late papers will be penalized 1% per week day of lateness.)  The paper should be a maximum of 30 pages (typed and double spaced), but quality is more important than quantity, and papers about 20 pages in length are acceptable.

Weekly Class Presentations:   From Jan. 13 to March 9, all students will be required to make short (5 minute maximum) class presentations, and to help lead a class discussion following the presentation.  The presentation will be on an assigned reading.  During the first class, a list of topics will be circulated, and each student is expected to sign up as a discussant for at least one topic.

*Please note that the last day for withdrawal from Winter term courses is March 7, 2003.

Required Text:

•F.L. Morton, Ed., Law, Politics and the Judicial Process in Canada (3rd edition).  Calgary:  University of Calgary Press, 2002.

Grading:
Major paper:                   40%
Major paper outline:        10%
Presentation of maj. pap. 10%
Minor paper:                   20%
Class presentations:        10%
Class participation:        10%
                                    100%
 
 

Jan. 6:   Purpose & organization of course.  Changes in orientation toward individual rights in western democracies during the past three decades; divisive issues re family values, race, language and sexuality.  The nature of the study of law, politics and justice.

Sign up for class presentations.

Jan. 13: The rule of law, and political jurisprudence
 1.0   Morton, "The Rule of Law"      1
 1.1   Roncarelli v. Duplessis                                                             8
 1.2   John Locke,'Of the Extent of the Legislative Power'   13
 1.3   Thomas Jefferson,'The Declaration of Independence'   15
 1.4   A.V.C. Dicey,'The Rule of Law'      16
 1.6  Thomas M.J.  Bateman, 'Liberal versus Post-liberal Constitutionalism:
  Applying the Charter to Civil Society      19
 2.0  Morton, "Political Jurisprudence"    31
 2.1   Paul Weiler,'Two Models of Judicial Decision-Making'   38
 2.2   Harrison v. Carswell                                      45
 2.3   Michael Mandel, 'Re Constitution of Canada, 1981:
  The Patriation Reference'     48
 2.4   Reference re the Secession of Quebec    56
 2.6  Candace C. White, 'Gender Differences on the Supreme Court' 85

Jan. 20: The Canadian Judicial System; judicial recruitment & selection
 3.0  Morton, "The Canadian Judicial System"     93
 3.1  Chief Justice Bora Laskin, 'The Role and Functions of
  Final Appellate Courts:  The Supreme Court of Canada'  100
 3.2  Constitution Act, 1867, Sections 96-101    109
 3.3  The Canadian Judicial System     110
 3.4  The Criminal and Civil Court Processes    112
 4.0  Morton, "Judicial Recruitment and Selection"       117
 4.1  Jeffrey Simpson, 'Patronage in Judicial Appointments"   133
 4.2   Sir Robert Megarry,  Judicial Appointments in Great Britain'     137
 4.3  Peter H. Russell and Jacob S. Ziegel, 'Mulroney's Judicial
  Appointments and the New Judicial Advisory Committees' 143
 4.4  Justice Bertha Wilson, 'Will Women Judges
  Really Make a Difference?'    147
 4.5  Rob Martin, "A 'Gender Patronage' for Judges?"   152
 4.6  F.L. Morton, 'To Bring Judicial Appointments Out of the Closet' 154
 4.7  William Thorsell, "What to Look For, and Guard Against,
  in a Supreme Court Judge'        157
 4.8  Jacob S. Ziegel, 'Merit Selection and Democratization
  of Appointments to the Supreme Court of Canada'    159

Jan. 27:   Judicial Independence, Ethics and Discipline
 5.0  Morton, "Judicial Independence, Ethics and Discipline"  169
 5.1  W.R. Lederman,'The Independence of the Judiciary'                   183
 5.2  The Berger Affair                                                     189
 5.3  Chief Justice Bora Laskin, "The Meaning and Scope
  of Judicial Independence"     196
 5.4  The McClung Affair      201
 5.5  F.L. Morton, "L'Heureux-Dubé Crosses the Line”   206
 5.6  Reference re Remuneration of judges of the Provincial Court (PEI.) 212
 5.7  Ian Greene et al.,"Judicial Independence:  The Views of
  Appellate Judges"     238
 5.8  Conor A. Gearty, 'What Are Judges For?'    245

Feb. 3:  Access to Judicial Power; Interest Groups & Litigation
 6.0  Morton, "Access to Judicial Power"       255
 6.1  Barry Strayer, 'Constitutional References'                            265
 6.2  Minister of Justice of Canada v. Borowski                             274
 6.3  Borowski v. Attorney-General of Canada                               280
 6.4  Alan Borovoy,"Interventions and the Public Interest'                289
 6.5  Ian Brodie, Intervenors and the Charter                              295
 7.0  Morton, "Interest Groups and Litigation"     301
 7.1  Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women,
  'Equality Rights and Legal Action'                                    309
 7.2  Sherene Razack,"The Women's Legal Education
  and Action Fund'                                                      316
 7.3  Ian Brodie,'The Court Challenges Program'     326
 7.4  Christopher R Manfredi, Constitutional Rights and Interest Advocacy:
  Litigating Education Reform in Canada and the United States'  329
 7.5  Gregory Hein, 'lnterest Group Litigation and Canadian Democracy' 343
  (Full text at:  http://www.irpp.org/indexe.htm)
 7.6  Ian Brodie, 'Response to Gregory Hein'                                    360

Feb 10:  Fact Finding in the Courts; Precedents, Statutes, & Legal Reasoning
 8.0  Morton, "Fact Finding in the Courts"    363
 8.1  Donald C. Horowitz, 'Fact Finding in litigation'   370
 8.2  Carl Baar, 'Social Facts, Court Delay and the Charter'  375
 9.0  Morton, "Precedents,, Statutes, and Legal Reasoning"       387
 9.1  G. Gordon Post, "Stare Decisis:  The Use of Precedents”  395
 9.2  A.V.C. Dicey, 'The Duty of a Court'    398
 9.3  Paul Weiler,  Architect of the Common Law'   398
 9.4  Boucher v. The King      405
 9.5  David Greener, 'The Transformative Power of the Legal Narrative' 409
 9.6  Troy Riddell, 'The Influence of Legal Commentary on
  Judicial Interpretation of the Charter'                                  414

Feb. 17:  Reading Week

Feb. 24:  Judicial Review: Federalism & Civil Liberties
 10.0 “Morton, Judicial Review and Federalism”      423
 10.1  Jennifer Smith, “The origins of Judicial Review in Canada”     433
 10.2  Lord Sankey, “The 'Living Tree' Approach to Interpreting the BNA Act” 442
 10.3  Lord Atkin, "The 'Watertight Compartments' Approach
  to Interpreting the BNA Act'     443
 10.4  Peter H. Russell, “The Anti-inflation Case:
  The Anatomy of a Constitutional Decision”   443
 10.5  Patrick Monahan, 'Does Federalism Review Matter?'   467
 11.0  Morton, “Judicial Review and Civil Liberties”    479
 11.5  James B. Kelly, 'The Supreme Court of Canada's Charter of Rights
  Decisions, 1982-1999: A Statistical Analysis’   496
 11.7  Charles Epp, 'Do Bills of Rights Matter?'    512

Mar. 2:  Judicial Decision-Making
 12.0  Morton, “Judicial Decision-Making”     533
 12.1  Justice Bertha Wilson, “Decision-makingin the Supreme Court of Canada" 543
 12.2  Roy B. Flemming,  Agenda Setting:  TheSelection of Cases for
  Judicial Review in the Supreme Court of Canada’   546
 12.3  F.L. Morton and Rainer Knopff, 'The Role of Clerks in the
  Supreme Court of Canada’     555
 12.4  James B. Kelly, “Judging the Judges:  The Decline of Dissent
  in the Supreme Court's Charter Decisions”   560

Mar. 9  Law and Politics: Judicial Review and Democracy
 13.0  Morton, “Reconciling Jud. Review and Constitutional Democracy” 571
 13.1  Donald Smiley, 'Courts, Legislatures, and the Protection
  of Human Rights'      575
 13.2  John D. Whyte, 'On Not Standing for Notwithstanding'  577
 13.3  Peter H. Russell, 'Standing Up for Notwithstanding'  584
 13.4  Scott Reid, “A Better Way of Saying'Notwithstanding"  596
 13.7  Peter W. Hogg & Allison Thornton, “The Charter Dialogue
  between Courts and Legislatures”    599
 13.7  F.L. Morton, “Dialogue or Monologue?”   603
 13.8  Justice Claire L’Heureux-Dubé, 'Judicial Independence
  and Judicial Activism'                                                 609
 13.9  Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, 'Courts, Legislatures,
  and Executives in the Post-Charter Era'                               617
 

Mar. 16 - 30: Presentations of student major paper summaries.
 •Readings from the student course kit (developed by students by Jan. 27).

Some books relevant to this course:
•Anderson, Ellen.  Judging Bertha Wilson: Law as large as life.  Toronto: Osgoode Society and U of T Press, 2001.
•Barrett, Maxwell.  The Law Lords. Basingstoke: Macmillan, 2001.
•Beatty, David.  Constitutional Law in Theory and Practice.  Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1995.
•Cairns, Alan C. Citizens Plus:  Aboriginal Peoples and the Canadian State. Vancouver:  UBC Press, 2000.
•Coates, Ken.  The Marshall Decision and Native Rights. Montreal & Kingston:  McGill-Queens, 2000.
•Dworkin, Ronald. Taking Rights Seriously.  Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 1978.
•Fletcher, Joseph F. and Paul Howe.  Public opinion and the courts.  Montreal: Institute for Research on Public Policy, 2000.
•Friedland, Martin L.  A Place Apart: Judicial Independence and Accountability in Canada.  Ottawa: Canadian Judicial Council, 1995.
•Greene, Ian, and Carl Baar, Peter McCormick, George Szablowski and Martin Thomas.  Final Appeal: Decision-making in Canadian Courts of Appeal.  Toronto:  Lorimer, 1998.
•Hiebert, Janet.  Charter conflicts : what is Parliament's role?  Montreal:  McGill-Queens, 2002.
•Howe, Paul and Peter H. Russell.  Judicial power and Canadian democracy.
Montreal: McGill-Queen’s for the Institute for Research on Public Policy, 2001.
•Ignatieff, Michael. The Rights Revolution. Toronto:  Anansi, 2000.
•Knopff, Rainer, and F.L. Morton.  Charter Politics.  Toronto:  Nelson, 1992.
•Mandel, Michael.   The Charter of Rights and the Legalization of Politics in Canada.  Toronto:  Thompson, 1994.
•Manfredi, Christopher.  Judicial Power and the Charter, Canada and the paradox of liberal constitutionalism, 2nd Ed. Toronto: Oxford University Press, 2001.
•McCormick, Peter.  Supreme At Last:  the Evolution of the Supreme Court of Canada. Toronto:  Lorimer, 2000.
•McCormick, Peter.  Canada's Courts.  Toronto:  Lorimer, 1995.
•McCormick, Peter and Ian Greene.  Judges and Judging: Inside the Canadian Judicial System.  Toronto: Lorimer, 1990.
•Morton, F.L. and Rainer Knopff, The Charter Revolution and the Court Party System. Peterborough:  Broadview, 1999.
•Russell, Peter.
 •The Judiciary in Canada: The Third Branch of Government. 1987.
 •Final report and recommendations of the Judicial Appointments Advisory Committee.  Toronto:  Judicial Appointments Advisory Committee, 1992.
 •“Toward a General Theory of Judicial Independence.” In Peter H. Russell and David M. O’Brien, Judicial Independence in the Age of Democracy.  University Press of Virginia: Charlottesville and London, 2001, 1-24.
•Saywell, John T.  The Lawmakers: Judicial Power and the Shaping of Canadian Federalism.  Toronto: Osgoode Society and U of T Press, 2002.
•Sniderman, Paul M., Peter Russell, Joseph Fletcher, & Philip Tetlock. The Clash of Rights.  New Haven, CT : Yale University Press, 1996
•Williams, George.  A Bill of Rights for Australia. Sydney:  UNSW Press, 2000.