Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T20:44:25.617Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Expanding Role of the Supreme Court of Canada in International Law Issues

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2016

Gérard V. La Forest
Get access

Summary

The rapid globalization that marks our era has resulted in increasing demands for the legal resolution of disputes arising out of interstate activities. National courts throughout the world have been significantly affected by this development. This article describes the recent expansion of the work of the Supreme Court of Canada in relation to transnational legal issues, including issues of public and private international law, human rights, admiralty law, and issues of private law having international ramifications. It traces the Court's evolving approach to international law issues and its willingness to reformulate its principles to meet modern conditions and to foster compliance with its norms. The more cosmopolitan attitude thereby generated has worked in concert with the Court's increasing willingness to rely on comparative law techniques in assuting in the resolution of issues of a localized character.

Sommaire

Sommaire

L'augmentation rapide des activités interétatiques qui marque notre époque a conduit à des demandes croùsantes de solution aux conflits en découlant par des moyens juridiques. Partout de par le monde, les tribunaux nationaux sont grandement touchés par ce développement. Le présent article décrit Vaccroissement récent des activités de la Cour suprême du Canada en ce qui concerne des questions juridiques transnationales, notamment des questions touchant le droit international public, le droit international privé, les droits de la personne, le droit maritime, ainsi que des questions de droit privé ayant des ramifications internationales. Il retrace l'évolution de l'approche de la Cour à l'égard des questions internationales et souligne sa volonté de reformuler les principes applicables de manière à pouvoir répondre aux exigences du monde moderne et de favoriser le respect des normes du droit international. L'attitude plus cosmopolite qui en découle contribue à la volonté toujours plus grande de la Cour de recourir aux techniques du droit comparé en s'acquittant de sa tâche de résoudre des conflits locaux.

Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Yearbook of International Law/Annuaire canadien de droit international , Volume 34 , 1996 , pp. 89 - 102
Copyright
Copyright © The Canadian Yearbook of International Law/Annuaire canadien de droit international 1996 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

The author is a justice of the Supreme Court of Canada. This article is based on an address given at the Banquet of the Annual Conference of the Canadian Council on International Law, October 18, 1996. The theme of the Conference was “Fostering Compliance with International Law.”

References

1 Libman v. The Queen, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 178; Krug v. The Queen, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 255; Spencer v. The Queen, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 278; Canada v. Schmidt, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 500; Argentina v. Mellino, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 536; United States v. Allard, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 564; R v. Crown Zellerbach Canada Ltd., [1988] 1 S.C.R. 401; R v. Parisien, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 950; United States v. Cotroni; United States v. El Zein, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1469; National Corn Growers Assn. v. Canada (Import Tribunal), [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1324; Dersch v. Canada (Attorney General), [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1505; United States v. Allard, [1991] 1 S.C.R. 861; Kindler v. Canada (Minister of Justice), [1991] 2 S.C.R. 779; Reference Re Ng Extradition (Can.), [1991] 2 S.C.R. 858; Re Canada Labour Code, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 50; McVey (Re); McVey v. United States, [1992] 3 S.C.R. 475; Idziak v. Canada (Minister of Justice), [1992] 3 S.C.R. 631; Canada (Attorney General) v. Ward, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 689; Ontario Hydro v. Ontario (Labour Relations Board), [1993] 3 S.C.R. 327; United States v. Lépine, [1994] 1 S.C.R. 286; R. v. Finta, [ 1994] 1 S.C.R. 701; Thomson v. Thomson, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 551; Chen v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1995] 1 S.C.R. 725; Crown Forest Industries Ltd. v. Canada, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 802; R v. Harrer, [1995] 3 S.C.R. 562; Chan v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1995] 3 S.C.R. 593; Swantje v. Canada, [1996] 1 S.C.R. 73; United States v. Jamieson, [1996] 1 S.C.R. 465; United States v. Whitley, [1996] 1 S.C.R. 467; United States v. Ross, [1996] 1 S.C.R. 469; United States v. Leon, [1996] 1 S.C.R. 888; R v. Terry, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 207.

2 These were earlier discussed in La Forest, G. V., “The Use of International Law in the Supreme Court of Canada” (1988)Google Scholar, Proceedings of the 17th Annual Conference of the Canadian Council on International Law at 230. The cases are the following: Law Society of Upper Canada v. Skapinker, [1984] 1 S.C.R. 357; Singh v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 177; R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295; Operation Dismantle v. The Queen, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 441; Re B.C. Motor Vehicle Act, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 486; Valente v. The Queen, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 673; R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103; Clarkson v. The Queen, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 383; Mills v. The Queen, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 863; R. v. Jones, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 284; RWDSU v. Dolphin Delivery Ltd., [1986] 2 S.C.R. 573; R v. Edwards Books and Art Ltd., [1986] 2 S.C.R. 713; Reference Re Public Service Employee Relations Act (Alta.), [1987] 1 S.C.R. 313; Canada v. Schmidt, supra note 1; Argentina v. Mellino, supra note 1; United States v. Allard, supra note 1; R. v. Rahey, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 588; R. v. Smith (Edward Dewey), [1987] 1 S.C.R. 1045; R. v. Lyons, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 309; R. v. Milne, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 512; R. v. Vaillancourt, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 636; R. v. Morgentaler, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 30; R. v. Hufsky, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 621; R. v. Corbett, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 670.

3 Ford v. Quebec (Attorney General), [1988] 2 S.C.R. 712; Andrews v. Law Society of British Columbia, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 143; United States v. Cotroni; United States v. El Zein, supra note 1; R v. Kalanj, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1594; R. v. Conway, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1659; Tremblay v. Daigle, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 530; Edmonton Journal v. Alberta (Attorney General), [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1326; R. v. Brydges, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 190; Reference Re ss. 193 and 195.I(I)(C) of the Criminal Code (Man.), [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1123; McKinney v. University of Guelph, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 229; R. v. Keegstra, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 697; Canada (Human Rights Commission) v. Taylor, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 892; Committee for the Commonwealth of Canada v. Canada, [1991] 1 S.C.R. 139; R. v. Lippé, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 114; Lavigne v. Ontario Public Service Employees Union, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 211; Kindler v. Canada (Minister of Justice), supra note 1; R. v. Butler, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 452; R. v. Nova Scotia Pharmaceutical Society, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 606; R. v. Zundel, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 731; R. v. Tran, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 951; Dagenais v. Canadian Broadcasting Corp., [1994] 3 S.C.R. 835; B.(R) v. Children’s Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto, [1995] 1 S.C.R. 315; Miron v. Trudel, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 418; Ruffo v. Conseil de la magistrature, [1995] 4 S.C.R. 267; Mooring v. Canada (National Parole Board), [1996] 1 S.C.R. 75.

4 Moran v. Pyle National (Canada) Ltd., [1975] 1 S.C.R. 393; Morguard Investments Ltd. v. De Savoye, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1077; Amchem Products Inc. v. British Columbia (Workers’ Compensation Board), [1993] 1 S.C.R. 897; Hunt v. T&N Plc, [1993] 4 S.C.R. 289; Thomson v. Thomson, supra note 1; Tolofson v. Jensen; Lucas (Litigation Guardian of) v. Gagnon, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 1022; Gordon v. Goertz, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 27; W.(V.) v. S.(D.), [1996] 2 S.C.R. 108.

5 TTO-International Terminal Operators Ltd. v. Miida Electronics Inc., [1986] 1 S.C.R. 752; Ontario (Attorney General) v. Pembina Exploration Canada Ltd., [1989] 1 S.C.R. 206; Q.N.S. Paper Co. v. Chartwell Shipping Ltd., [1989] 2 S.C.R. 683; Whitbread v. Walley, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1273; Sunrise Co. v. Lake Winnipeg (The), [1991] 1 S.C.R. 3; Monk Corp. v. Island Fertilizers Ltd., [1991] 1 S.C.R. 779.

6 See, e.g., Thomson v. Thomson, supra note l.

7 See, e.g., Amchem Products Inc. v. British Columbia (Workers’ Compensation Board), supra note 4.

8 See, e.g., Libman v. The Queen, supra note 1.

9 See, e.g., Swantje v. Canada, supra note 1.

10 See the Charter cases, supra notes 2 and 3.

11 See, e.g., Canada (Attorney General) v. Ward, supra note 1.

12 See, e.g., R. v. Finta, supra note 1.

13 See, e.g., Kindler v. Canada (Minister of Justice), supra note 1.

14 Supra note 1.

15 These are fully discussed in Libman v. The Queen, supra note l.

16 See Director of Public Prosecutions v. Doot, [1973] A.C. 807 at 831, cited with approval in Libman v. The Queen, supra note 1, at 197.

17 Supra note 1.

18 Ibid.

19 Ibid.

20 Ibid.

21 Ibid.

22 Ibid.

23 Ibid.

24 See United States v. Jamieson, supra note I; United States v. Whitley, supra note 1; United States v. Ross, supra note I; United States v. Leon, Leon, supra note I.

25 Supra note I.

26 Ibid.

27 See Spencer v. The Queen, supra note I.

28 Supra note 1.

29 Ibid.

30 Ibid.

31 Ibid.

32 This mutual reliance can be seen in, e.g., Chan v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), supra note 1.

33 213 U.N.T.S 221.

34 For a discussion, see La Forest, Gérard V., “The Use of American Precedents in Canadian Courts” (1994) 46 Maine Law Rev. 211.Google Scholar

35 See the cases listed, supra notes 2 and 3.

36 See, inter alia, R. v. Keegstra, supra note 3; Canada (Human Rights Commission) v. Taylor, supra note 3; R. v. Zundel, supra note 3.

37 See, inter alia, Ford v. Quebec (Attorney General), supra note 3; Andrews v. Law Society of British Columbia, supra note 3; United States v. Cotroni; United States v. El Zein, supra note 1; R. v. O’Connor, [1995] 4 S.C.R. 411.

38 See, e.g., Kindler v. Canada (Minister of Justice), supra note 1 (Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment); Ruffo v. Conseil de la magistrature, supra note 3 (Universal Declaration on the Independence of Justice).

39 See, e.g., R. v. Milne, supra note 2.

40 See 189 U.N.T.S. 137.

41 See [1983] 35 Can. T.S.

42 Supra note 1.

43 Ibid.

44 Ibid.

45 Ibid. 578

46 Supra note 4.

47 Supra note 1.

48 Supra note 1.

49 For a brief discussion, see La Forest, supra note 34, esp. at 216–20; see also La Forest, Gérard V., “Who is Listening to Whom? The Discourse between the Canadian Judiciary and Academics,” an address delivered to the Centre for the Advanced Study of European and Comparative Law, Nov. 15, 1996 (in press).Google Scholar

50 Morguard Investments Ltd. v. De Savoye, supra note 4; Amchem Products Inc. v. British Columbia (Workers’ Compensation Board), supra note 4; Hunt v. T&N Plc, supra note 4; Tolofson v. Jensen; Lucas (Litigation Guardian of) v. Gagnon, supra note 4.

51 See, e.g., Canadian National Railway Co. v. Norsk Padfic Steamship Co., [1992] 1 S.C.R. 1021; London Drugs Ltd. v. Kuehne & Nagel International Ltd., [1992] 3 S.C.R. 299.