Tag Archives: Carissima Mathen

The Person’s Case, in Carissma Mathen’s “Courts without Cases: The Law and Politics of Advisory Opinions” (Hart 2019)

You can find the book for order here, and check Carissima on Twitter @cmathen in case she’s doing a launch event that you can get to (Winter Semester, Osgoode). If you are on twitter and don’t follow her, recommend that you do, for live tweeting all kinds of things, for instant digests of SCC new releases, for fun. Oh, and if you want the JCPC Person’s case itself, here it is on Canlii.

(excerpt from Chapter 7 “Interpretation and Rights” with thanks to Carissima)

It took time for the Persons Case to make its mark. [A]side from a few other Privy Council decisions, it went virtually unmentioned until 1979.  In its own time, academic discussion of the reference was uniformly negative.  British scholar Berriedale Keith said that ‘no decision of the Privy Council is probably harder to defend as sound in law ’.  GF Henderson was equally cutting, charging that the case was ‘not written in strict accordance with well understood legal principles ’; that the federal government had manipulated the situation to secure its preferred outcome; and that the JCPC had by ‘ judicial legislation … altered the constitution of the Senate of Canada ’.

More positive regard began to emerge in the 1970s, a time of greater awareness of women’s rights and an increasing role for feminist advocacy. After being mentioned in some early Charter decisions, Edwards quickly assumed more prominence. The reference enjoyed an intriguing duality. It was used to chart a different path to constitutional interpretation compared to the more formalist approach of the Supreme Court of the 1970s. At the same time, being so deeply rooted in the country ’s legal history, it may have rendered the Court ’s momentous interpretative choices, a number of which are explored later in this chapter, less radical.

The critiques of the Persons Case are reminiscent of the debates in the United States over the soundness of the Brown v Board of Education (Topeka) landmark decision.  Although it is possible to legitimately object to the judicial craft in each, and many commentators do, few take the next step and claim that the decision should be cast aside.  In Canada, such a position would be repudiated by all but the most implacable defenders of constitutional minimalism.  The hesitation to fully back the implications of such a critique illustrates the opinion’s power. For, while the reference may attract debate over its precise contours, and future applications, there is in almost all quarters an acceptance of its legacy and continuing force.”

Have you or your colleagues got New In Print academic/legal work that could be featured here? Let me know via email.

Supreme Court Appointments: Links, Thoughts

Here are a couple of comments which appeared on U of O’s “Blogging for Equality” site, from Carissima Mathen  (“In a sense, we are all trying to read tea leaves. It is difficult to know how, exactly, any individual will fare in the Supreme Court’s rarified corridors”) and Jenna McGill (“we are not operating under the delusion that female-ness is a proxy for feminist, nor that every female judge will be a champion of equality”).  See also Osgoode Profs Hutchinson and Ryder in various newspapers here    here and here.  And of course (sorry for the late addition) the Dean, Lorne Sossin, here (true to his heart, he focuses on process).

Now I’ve become more interested in the nature of the coverage than the appointments themselves. I see that the NDP is officially opposing Moldaver J.’s appointment because he is not bilingual which makes some sense. But I’m intrigued by Kirk Makin (G&M Justice reporter)  easy comment re Karakatsanis J’s appointment, that it would “forestall feminist criticism by maintaining the court’s complement of female judges at four” (see @osgoodeifls twitter feed for my immediate reaction: “really? are we that easy to please?”).

And I’m interested in this short bio piece on Karakatsanis J. from the Hamilton Spectator, which reveals more about her early life as an immigrant, as a waitress in her family’s greek restaurant at Don Mills and Lawrence, and about her partner, his struggle with MS, and his own modest background.  These things aren’t indicative of her views (just recently, we got these stats, for instance).  But they are still interesting and paint a fuller picture of this woman.  She is getting a rather rough ride,, and at the same time as I’m hard pressed to support her, I’m disturbed by the ease with which merit based arguments are raised against her.  Of course they are! Merit is such a problematic measure.  It isn’t meaningless, but it means something different to each person who uses the phrase.  In these contexts, male dominated professions, highly contested appointments – it makes me unhappy.  Karakatsanis J is no Sonia Sotomayor (so many points of difference!), and she’s no Harriet Miers, either – but some of the themes and tropes in the critiques feel altogether too similar.