Appellate Review of Social Facts: How Deference to Trial Courts Threatens to Uproot the Living Tree

Chaque été, le Centre Paul-André Crépeau de droit privé et comparé organise une série de séminaires afin de promouvoir les travaux de recherche des étudiants et des étudiantes de McGill et d’ailleurs.

Pour cette présentation, nous accueillons Charles R. Daoust, Université McGill.

Résumé

My research papers tackles the issue of social fact evidence in constitutional rights litigation. In particular, I assess the impact of two recent Supreme Court of Canada decisions in which the Court formulates a full-deference approach to findings of social fact by trial courts. Though the Court’s expeditious overview of the topic has done little to indicate its potentially far-reaching implications, I argue that the Court’s conclusion regarding the treatment of social framework evidence during the appeal process will significantly affect the scope of Canadian appellate courts’ authority to shape legal rules and ensure their universal application. Moreover, the neutering of appellate judges’ power to independently review social facts will contribute to the accelerating pace of the Canadian justice system’s growing trend toward trial-centric, fact-based adjudication in constitutional cases. This phenomenon will further undermine higher courts’ ability to fulfill their obligation to honor and apply the ‘living tree’ doctrine. I contend that a middle ground approach to deference enabling appellate courts to incorporate their own reading of the social, political and economic context into their decisions will better serve Canadian citizens and help protect their rights.

Tout le monde est invité à y assister. Pour plus d’informations, prière d'écrire au Centre Crépeau.