The most widely read magazine for Canadian lawyers
Issue link: https://digital.canadianlawyermag.com/i/51912
opinion "what kinds of problems should lead courts to intervene in policy disputes. " We should assess judges and Supreme Court nominees, writes Eisgruber, based on their judicial philoso- phies. Should it be any different in Canada? I think not. For sure, disputes that reach the highest court in either country are, for the most part, policy disputes, rather than legal disputes. Eisgruber points out that U.S. Supreme Court justices generally agree to hear only those cases that present "novel and important ques- tions of national law." He writes, "With very few exceptions, the Supreme Court's cases pose legal issues about which reasonable judges not only could disagree but have in fact disagreed. Few such disputes can be resolved by purely technical exercises of legal skill." Canada is no different. University of Toronto law professors Andrew Green and Ben- Kaufman_Privacy Law_6.0 1/14/08 10:18 AM Page 1 If each judge stays until he or she is required to leave at age 75, we won't be seeing any new appointments for quite some time. This lull should be used to reconsider fundamentally how Supreme Court judges are appointed. jamin Alarie have recently concluded, from an empirical study of judicial voting records, that in the last few years Canadian Supreme Court judges have not behaved in ideologically pre- dictable ways (with some exceptions). Green and Alarie write, "Any claim that the obscure and relatively secretive appoint- ments process that has predominated in the post-Charter era Privacy Law in the Private Sector: An Annotation of the Legislation in Canada This indispensable guide to the law regulating privacy in the private sector in Canada provides text and cross- referencing for current federal and provincial statutes and regulations that address private sector privacy, together with annotations, commentaries and case law references and summaries that clarify the law. Inside you'll find federal privacy legislation (PIPEDA) for British Columbia, Alberta and Quebec as well as privacy legislation in respect of personal health information for Ontario. It also includes highlights setting out commentary on the most current issues of interest in privacy. Order your copy TODAY! Looseleaf & binders (2) • $319 • Supplements invoiced separately (1-2/yr) P/C 0968030000 • ISBN 0-88804-376-7 • ISSN 1717-3353 CL0208 For a 30-day, no-risk evaluation call: 1 800 263 2037 or 1 800 263 3269 www.canadalawbook.ca Canada Law Book is A Division of The Cartwright Group Ltd. Free Shipping on pre-paid orders. Prices subject to change without notice, and to applicable taxes. 28 FEBRU AR Y 2008 www. C ANADIAN Law ye rmag.com has produced justices that are keenly indulging ideological inclinations has been seriously undermined by our results." One infers that professors Green and Alarie are pretty much okay with the way the Canadian Supreme Court appointment process now operates. Eisgruber's research has led to a much different conclusion about the United States. He writes, "A judge's personal political values are a good predictor of how that judge will vote in a certain set of politically prominent cases," and that, "A nominee's judicial philosophy is the most impor- tant determination of what kind of justice she will be, and judicial philosophies include ideological elements." In August 2005, Irwin Cot- ler, then minister of justice, announced a "new Supreme Court of Canada appointments process" that would be used to fill the vacancy created by the retirement of justice John Major and subsequent vacancies. This new process requires wide consultation, assessment of a shortlist of candidates by an advisory committee of broad composition, and an appearance by the minister of justice be- fore the Commons justice standing committee to discuss the proposed appointment. In February 2006, in a further develop- ment, Marshall Rothstein, the replacement chosen for Major, appeared personally before an ad hoc parliamentary commit- tee and answered questions for three hours. Said Rothstein, as part of a polite and tepid exchange, "The court's job is really to take what you [MPs] say about social issues and try to interpret it as best we can and apply it to the facts." This is reminiscent of what John Roberts, now chief justice of the United States, said during his 2005 Senate confirmation hearings: "I come before the committee with no agenda. I have no platform. Judges are not politicians. I will remember that it's my job to call balls and strikes and not to pitch or bat." Eisgruber's comment on Roberts is that, "His umpiring turned out to have a decidedly conservative slant." The "new process" in Canada is only a baby step towards ap- propriate reform. A Supreme Court appointment remains the gift of the prime minister acting alone. Consultation is still only consultation. The polite public hearings by a powerless parlia- mentary committee, with everyone pretending that judges don't make law, seem like a waste of time. Why shouldn't a Supreme Court appointment require parliamentary confirmation? Justice Morris Fish is the oldest Supreme Court judge, and he is only 69. Most of the justices are in their 60s, with two (Justice Marie Deschamps and Justice Louise Charron) in their mid-50s. If each judge stays until he or she is required to leave at age 75, we won't be seeing any new appointments for quite some time. This lull should be used to reconsider fundamen- tally how Supreme Court judges are appointed. Philip Slayton has been dean of a law school, and senior partner of a major Canadian law firm. He is online at www. philipslayton.com. Jeffre Currentontributors: y c Past A. ontributors: c Kaufman Pris Sa ra Platt, cilla A. Levine,se J. Li Alexis Hendlisz, Ker r , Karl Da Delwai phne Intrato r de and Karine and Antoineoizil A J ylwin