The most widely read magazine for Canadian lawyers
Issue link: https://digital.canadianlawyermag.com/i/50802
opinion Deschamps comes from an upper- middle-class background. Her father, Jean Deschamps, was president of the Olympics Installations Board and served as Quebec's delegate general to Paris and Brussels. She is a fitness buff, a long-distance runner, she also swims, skis, plays tennis, and snowboards (or, at least, at the time of her appointment was reported as doing all these things). "Exercise is important," she says. She is also known as an art aficionado and collector. A rather unexceptional background, perhaps, not promising much excitement. But, less than two years later, veteran legal reporter Janice Tibbetts was describing Deschamps as "the great dissenter," arguing that she was emerging as one of the Supreme Court's "most fearless and original thinkers." Tibbetts noted that Deschamps, in her first 18 months on the court, had written more dissenting or separate opinions than any other judge. Her dissents included the "spanking case," in which she held that s. 43 of the Criminal Code, which allows the use of reasonable force against children by parents and teacher, was contrary to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms; R. v. Malmo-Levine; R. v. Caine, in which she held that provisions of the Narcotic Control Act prohibiting the possession of marijuana and providing for imprisonment were disproportionate to the societal problems at issue and therefore arbitrary and contrary to the Charter; and Miglin v. Miglin, in which Deschamps took a broad view of the circumstances in which a separation agreement might be modified, saying that excessive deference to such agreements by the courts is an undesirable policy. In 2005, a year after the Tibbetts article, The National Post described Deschamps as "a plain-spoken, independent judge not afraid to stand out from the crowd." The Supreme Court had just handed down judgment in Chaoulli v. Quebec, which found to be unconstitutional laws that prevented Quebeckers from taking out insurance to obtain private services that were available under the public health-care plan. This time Deschamps wrote for the majority. She said the prohibition on paying for private health insurance infringed "the right to personal inviolability and . . . is not justified by a proper regard for democratic values, public order, and the general well-being of the citizens of Quebec." The Ottawa Citizen commented, "Canada's top court has looked into the eyes of the country's political leaders and called their bluff. . . . The judgment is truly historic and will transform this country's health system in ways that we still do not comprehend." Marie Deschamps has been a surprise. She's another example of how we never know what to expect from someone appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada. Philip Slayton has been dean of a law school and senior partner of a major Canadian law firm. Visit him online at philipslayton.com LadiesGolf_CL_Mar_09.indd 1 www. C ANADIAN Law ye rmag.com M ARCH 2009 27 2/10/09 4:17:05 PM