Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-grvzd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-04-17T20:08:15.340Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Stability and Change: Policy Evolution on the Supreme Court of Canada, 1945–2005

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 October 2018

Susan W. Johnson
Susan W. Johnson*
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, 323 Curry Bldg., Greensboro, NC 27402
*
*Corresponding author. E-mail: swjohnso@uncg.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Studies of the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) focus largely on its policy-making role and its interpretation of the Charter of Rights. However, less studied are the Court's decisions in earlier periods, especially in comparison to the Charter years and in cases beyond civil rights and liberties. This study fills a gap in the scholarship by analyzing the universe of decisions from 1945 to 2005 in criminal, tax and tort cases. Utilizing Baum's (1988, 1989) method to examine policy change, I explore policy trends on the Supreme Court. The findings suggest that, for the most part, the SCC has remained a stable, consistent body over the course of its modern history. It appears that most of the variation in judicial output across time is due to issue change with some shifts due to personnel and membership change.

Résumé

Les études de la Cour suprême du Canada (CSC) portent principalement sur son rôle d'élaboration des politiques et son interprétation de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés. Toutefois, les décisions de la Cour à des périodes antérieures sont moins étudiées, surtout en regard des années de la Charte et dans des cas allant au-delà des droits et libertés civils. La présente étude, qui analyse l'univers des décisions rendues de 1945 à 2005 en matière pénale, fiscale et délictuelle, vient combler une lacune de la recherche. En utilisant la méthode de Baum (1988, 1989) pour examiner les changements d'orientation, j'explore les tendances politiques à la Cour suprême. Les résultats suggèrent que, dans l'ensemble, la CSC est demeurée un organe stable et constant tout au long de son histoire moderne. Il appert que la plus grande partie de la variation de la production judiciaire au fil du temps est due à l’évolution des enjeux, certains changements étant attribuables à la mobilité et à la composition du tribunal.

Information

Type
Research Article/Étude originale
Information
Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique , Volume 52 , Issue 2 , June 2019 , pp. 343 - 362
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Political Science Association (l'Association canadienne de science politique) and/et la Société québécoise de science politique 2018 

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Alarie, Benjamin and Green, Andrew. 2008. “Should They All Just Get Along? Judicial Ideology, Collegiality, and Appointments to the Supreme Court of Canada.” University of New Brunswick Law Journal 58 (1): 73–91.Google Scholar
Alarie, Benjamin and Green, Andrew. 2009a. “Charter Decisions in the McLachlin Era: Consensus and Ideology at the Supreme Court of Canada.” Supreme Court Review 47 (2): 475–511.Google Scholar
Alarie, Benjamin and Green, Andrew. 2009b. “Policy Preference Change and Appointments to the Supreme Court of Canada.” Osgoode Hall Law Journal 47 (1): 1–46.Google Scholar
Baar, Carl. 1991. “Judicial Activism in Canada.” In Judicial Activism in Comparative Perspective, ed. Holland, Kenneth M.. New York: St. Martin's Press.Google Scholar
Baum, Lawrence. 1988. “Measuring Policy Change in the U.S. Supreme Court.” American Political Science Review 82 (3): 905–12.Google Scholar
Baum, Lawrence. 1989. “Comparing the Policy Positions of Supreme Court Justices from Different Periods.” Western Political Quarterly 42 (4): 509–21.Google Scholar
Brodie, Ian. 2002. Friends of the Court: The Privileging of Interest Group Litigants in Canada. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Epp, Charles. 1998. The Rights Revolution: Lawyers, Activists, and the Supreme Court in Comparative Perspective. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Epstein, Lee and Knight, Jack. 1998. The Choices Justices Make. Washington DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
Epstein, Lee, Walker, Thomas G. and Dixon, William J.. 1989. “The Supreme Court and Criminal Justice Disputes: A Neo-Institutional Perspective.” American Journal of Political Science 33 (4): 825–41.Google Scholar
Fine, Sean. 2014. “Harper alleges Supreme Court Chief Justice broke key rule with phone call.” The Globe and Mail, May 4.Google Scholar
Fletcher, Joseph F. 1999. Ideas in Action: Essays on Politics and Law in Honour of Peter Russell. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Galanter, Marc. 1974. “Why the ‘Haves’ Come Out Ahead: Speculations on the Limits of Legal Change.” Law and Society Review 9(1): 95–160.Google Scholar
Hausegger, Lori and Haynie, Stacia. 2003. “Judicial Decision Making and the Use of Panels in the Canadian Supreme Court and the South African Appellate Division.” Law & Society Review 37 (3): 635–57.Google Scholar
Hausegger, Lori, Hennigar, Matthew and Riddell, Troy. 2009. Canadian Courts: Law, Politics and Process. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hausegger, Lori, Riddell, Troy and Hennigar, Matthew. 2013. “Does Patronage Matter? Connecting Influences on Judicial Appointments with Judicial Decision Making.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 46 (3): 665–90.Google Scholar
Johnson, Susan W. 2012. “The Supreme Court of Canada and Strategic Decision Making: Examining Justice Voting Patterns during Periods of Institutional Change.” American Review of Canadian Studies 42 (2): 236–56.Google Scholar
Kelly, James B. 2005. Governing with the Charter: Legislative and Judicial Activism and Framers’ Intent. Vancouver: UBC Press.Google Scholar
Macfarlane, Emmett. 2013. Governing from the Bench: The Supreme Court and the Judicial Role. Vancouver: UBC Press.Google Scholar
Maltzman, Forrest, Spriggs II, James F. and Wahlbeck, Paul. 2000. Crafting Law on the Supreme Court: The Collegial Game. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Manfredi, Christopher P. 1989. “Adjudication, Policy-Making and the Supreme Court of Canada: Lessons from the Experience of the United States.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 22 (2): 313–35.Google Scholar
Manfredi, Christopher P. 2004. Feminist Activism in the Supreme Court of Canada. Vancouver: UBC Press.Google Scholar
Manfredi, Christopher P. and Kelly, James B.. 1999. “Six Degrees of Dialogue: A Response to Hogg and Bushnell.” Osgoode Hall Law Journal 37: 513–27.Google Scholar
McCormick, Peter and Greene, Ian. 1990. Judges and Judging: Inside the Canadian Judicial System. Toronto, Ontario: James Lorimer.Google Scholar
Morton, F.L. and Knopff, Rainer. 2000. The Charter Revolution and the Court Party. Peterborough ON: Broadview.Google Scholar
Ostberg, C.L. and Wetstein, Matthew E.. 2007. Attitudinal Decision Making in the Supreme Court of Canada. Vancouver: UBC Press.Google Scholar
Ostberg, C.L., Wetstein, Matthew, Songer, Donald R. and Johnson, Susan W.. 2009. “Ideological Consistency and Attitudinal Conflict: A Comparative Analysis of the U.S. and Canadian Supreme Courts.” Comparative Political Studies 42 (6): 763–92.Google Scholar
Pritchett, C.Herman. 1948. The Roosevelt Court. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Russell, Peter H. 1992. “The Supreme Court in the 1980s: A Commentary on the SCR Statistics .” Osgoode Hall Law Journal 30 (4): 771–95.Google Scholar
Russell, Peter H. 1995. “Canadian Constraints on Judicialization from Without.” In The Global Expansion of Judicial Power, ed. Neal Tate, C. and Vallinder, Torbjorn. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
Schubert, Glendon A. 1965. The Judicial Mind: Attitudes and Ideologies of Supreme Court Justices, 1946–1963. Evanston IL: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
Segal, Jeffrey A. and Spaeth, Harold J.. 1993. The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sheehan, Reginald S., Mishler, William and Songer, Donald R.. 1992. “Ideology, Status and the Differential Success of Direct Parties Before the Supreme Court” American Political Science Review 86 (2): 464–71.Google Scholar
Songer, Donald R. 2008. The Transformation of the Supreme Court of Canada: An Empirical Examination. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Songer, Donald R., Johnson, Susan W., Ostberg, C.L. and Wetstein, Matthew E.. 2012. Law, Ideology and Collegiality: Judicial Behaviour in the Supreme Court of Canada. Montreal: McGill-Queens University Press.Google Scholar
Spaeth, Harold J. 1965. “Unidimensionality and Item Invariance in Judicial Scaling.” Behavioural Science 10 (3): 290–304.Google Scholar
Tate, C. Neal and Sittiwong, Panu. 1989. “Decision Making in the Canadian Supreme Court: Extending the Personal Attributes Model Across Nations.” Journal of Politics 51 (4): 900–16.Google Scholar
Tate, C. Neal and Vallinder, Torbjorn. 1995. The Global Expansion of Judicial Power. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
Wetstein, Matthew and Ostberg, C.L.. 2005. “Strategic Leadership and Political Change on the Canadian Supreme Court: Analyzing the Transition to Chief Justice.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 38 (3): 653–73.Google Scholar
Wetstein, Matthew and Ostberg, C.L.. 2017. Value Change in the Supreme Court of Canada. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Ziegel, Jacob S. 2001. “Merit Selection and Democratization of Appointments to the Supreme Court of Canada.” In Judicial Power and Canadian Democracy, ed. Howe, Paul and H, Peter. Russell. Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press.Google Scholar