Judging federalism : a full circle account of the Supreme Court of Canada's post-Charter federalism jurisprudence

Simple item page
dc.contributor.authorHastings, Kalen Michael
dc.contributor.authorUniversity of Lethbridge. Faculty of Arts and Science
dc.contributor.supervisorMcCormick, Peter
dc.date.accessioned2014-10-28T18:02:05Z
dc.date.available2014-10-28T18:02:05Z
dc.date.issued2013
dc.degree.levelMastersen_US
dc.degree.levelMasters
dc.description.abstractIn the post-Charter era, Canada’s national high court has developed a distinct political philosophy that guides the manner in which they dispose of federalism disputes. Although adherents to the “pendulum theory” of judicial review believe that federalism “balance” is created and maintained through a series of offsetting federal-provincial “wins” and “losses,” I suggest that the Supreme Court’s tolerance and embrace of legislative concurrency flows out of a deeper, conscious desire to facilitate intergovernmental relations in Canada. This approach is implicit in both the doctrines they apply and the policy statements they make. The Court is reluctant to declare laws invalid and avoids application of what they refer to as the “constraining” interjurisdictional immunity and paramountcy doctrines. The Supreme Court’s decision-making philosophy in federalism cases is not value-free, however. While the Supreme Court’s post-Charter preference for “balance” and “flexibility” reinforces the practice of intergovernmental collaboration—a political convention—it simultaneously undermines the political ideals the Fathers of Confederation intended federalism to serve. The jurisprudence of “restraint” suppresses the civic virtues that naturally emanate from a classical, originalist reading of the division of powers. In Judging Federalism I seek to bridge the gap by attempting to understand the Supreme Court’s federalism case law vis-à-vis the moral underpinnings of our Constitution.en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/10133/3568
dc.language.isoen_CAen_US
dc.proquest.subject0615en_US
dc.proquest.subject0385en_US
dc.proquest.subject0398en_US
dc.proquestyesYesen_US
dc.publisherLethbridge, Alta. : University of Lethbridge, Dept. of Political Scienceen_US
dc.publisher.departmentDepartment of Political Scienceen_US
dc.publisher.facultyArts and Scienceen_US
dc.relation.ispartofseriesThesis (University of Lethbridge. Faculty of Arts and Science)en_US
dc.subjectSupreme Court of Canadaen_US
dc.subjectpost-Charteren_US
dc.subjectlegislative concurrencyen_US
dc.subjectdivision of powersen_US
dc.subjectfederalism jurisprudenceen_US
dc.subjectCanada. Supreme Court -- Decision making
dc.subjectCanada. Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
dc.subjectConstitutional law -- Canada
dc.subjectDissertations, Academic
dc.titleJudging federalism : a full circle account of the Supreme Court of Canada's post-Charter federalism jurisprudenceen_US
dc.typeThesisen_US
Files
Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
HASTINGS_KALEN_MA_2013.pdf
Size:
7.01 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
Download
License bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
license.txt
Size:
1.63 KB
Format:
Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
Description:
Download
Collections
Arts and Science, Faculty of
University of Lethbridge Theses