Unfinished Business in Unwritten Justice: Unwritten Constitutional Principles After Toronto (City) v. Ontario (Attorney General)
Abstract
This article examines unwritten constitutional principles (UCPs) within the context of the Supreme Court of Canada’s 2021 obiter opinion in Toronto (City) v. Ontario (Attorney General). The Supreme Court has traditionally accepted three main arguments in justifying the use of UCPs. The Toronto (City) v. Ontario (Attorney General) majority strictly prescribed a “textual approach,” whereby a court broadly interprets the written Constitution, negating the importance of UCPs as independent legal tools. I respectfully submit that the majority failed to provide a reasoned framework for UCPs. I argue that certain constitutional issues arise that cannot be addressed through explicit constitutional provisions. Relying exclusively on enumerated provisions to invalidate legislation may stress the democratic authority of the Constitution when its provisions have a weak tie to a desired principle that addresses the constitutional threat at hand. In these cases, it is better if constitutional principles and values are openly acknowledged and subjected to careful consideration, analysis, caution, and criticism through structural argumentation. While the written text of the Constitution must always take priority, Canadian courts must sometimes turn to the full legal power of UCPs when faced with novel constitutional issues unforeseen when the Constitution was drafted.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
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.