Rethinking the Instrumental Rationality Principles of Fundamental Justice
In Canada (Attorney General) v. Bedford, the Supreme Court of Canada fundamentally altered its approach to proving breaches of the instrumental rationality principles of fundamental justice. In response, commentators have charged that the Supreme Court’s new “individualistic” approach makes it too easy to prove a breach of the principles of fundamental justice. This is mainly a result of the Supreme Court’s expanded understanding of overbreadth, which now requires only that a law apply in an arbitrary manner to a single person. The problem with the Supreme Court’s new approach, however, is not necessarily with individualizing the analysis. Instead, upon revamping the instrumental rationality principles, the Supreme Court neglected to ask a more basic question: does the new conception of each principle still meet the requirements to qualify as a principle of fundamental justice? Although the arbitrariness and gross disproportionality principles are still integral to fundamental justice, I contend that the individualized conception of overbreadth has inadequate societal consensus to qualify as a principle of fundamental justice.
For Editions following and including Volume 61 No. 1, the following applies.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License
For Editions prior to Volume 61 No. 1, the following applies.
Author(s) retain original copyright in the substantive content of the titled work, subject to the following rights that are granted indefinitely:
- Author(s) grant the Alberta Law Review permission to produce, publish, disseminate, and distribute the titled work in electronic format to online database services, including, but not limited to: LexisNexis, QuickLaw, HeinOnline, and EBSCO;
- Author(s) grant the Alberta Law Review permission to post the titled work on the Alberta Law Review website and/or related websites.
- Author(s) agree that the titled work may be used for educational or instructional purposes and/or in educational or instructional materials. The author(s) acknowledge that the titled work is subject to other such "fair dealing" provisions and applicable legislation.
- Author(s) grant a limited license to those accessing the titled work from an electronic database or an Alberta Law Review website to download the titled work onto their computer and to print a copy for their own personal, non-commercial use, subject to proper attribution.
To use the journal's content elsewhere, permission must be obtained from the author(s) and the Alberta Law Review.