Appellate Review of Social Facts: How Deference to Trial Courts Threatens to Uproot the Living Tree
Each聽summer, the Paul-Andr茅 Cr茅peau Centre for Private and Comparative Law organizes a series of seminars to promote research of students from McGill and elsewhere. 聽
For this presentation, we welcome Charles R. Daoust, 香蕉视频.
Abstract
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鈥檚 expeditious overview of the topic has done little to indicate its potentially far-reaching implications, I argue that the Court鈥檚 conclusion regarding the treatment of social framework evidence during the appeal process will significantly affect the scope of Canadian appellate courts鈥� authority to shape legal rules and ensure their universal application. Moreover, the neutering of appellate judges鈥� power to independently review social facts will contribute to the accelerating pace of the Canadian justice system鈥檚 growing trend toward trial-centric, fact-based adjudication in constitutional cases. This phenomenon will further undermine higher courts鈥� ability to fulfill their obligation to honor and apply the 鈥榣iving tree鈥� 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.
Attendance is open to all. For more information, please email the Cr茅peau Centre.