Judicial activism

Definition

Judicial activism refers to the philosophy where judges interpret the law in a way that actively shapes policy and addresses social issues, often going beyond the literal meaning of statutes. This approach is characterized by a willingness to overturn precedent and consider broader societal implications, particularly in the context of upholding or expanding individual rights and freedoms.

5 Must Know Facts For Your Next Test

1. Judicial activism gained prominence in Canada following the adoption of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982, which empowered courts to address issues of constitutional rights more assertively.
2. Judges exercising judicial activism often focus on the intention behind laws and their impact on individuals, rather than strictly adhering to legislative text.
3. This approach has led to significant rulings that have advanced social justice causes, including Indigenous rights, gender equality, and freedom of expression.
4. Critics argue that judicial activism can undermine democracy by allowing unelected judges to make decisions that should be left to elected representatives.
5. Notable Supreme Court cases, like R v. Morgentaler, demonstrate judicial activism where the Court struck down laws seen as infringing on individual rights, illustrating its influence on Canadian law.

Review Questions

• How does judicial activism differ from judicial restraint in terms of interpreting laws?
  • Judicial activism contrasts with judicial restraint in that it encourages judges to take a more proactive role in interpreting laws and addressing social issues. While judicial restraint emphasizes deference to legislative intent and limits intervention unless there is a clear constitutional violation, judicial activism supports the idea that judges should actively protect and expand individual rights. This means that activists may overturn existing precedents if they believe it serves justice or reflects changing societal values.
• Discuss how the Charter of Rights and Freedoms has influenced the practice of judicial activism in Canada.
  • The Charter of Rights and Freedoms has significantly influenced judicial activism in Canada by providing a framework for protecting individual rights and freedoms. Since its enactment, courts have used the Charter to interpret laws more expansively, often prioritizing personal liberties over legislative constraints. This has led to landmark decisions that reshape societal norms and address injustices, highlighting the role of the judiciary as an active participant in upholding democratic values.
• Evaluate the implications of judicial activism on Canadian democracy and its relationship with elected officials.
  • Judicial activism raises important questions about the balance of power between the judiciary and elected officials in Canadian democracy. While it allows courts to address societal issues and protect individual rights, critics argue that it can lead to an overreach of judicial authority, undermining the role of elected representatives. The challenge lies in maintaining an effective system where courts can safeguard rights while respecting democratic processes, ensuring that public policy reflects the will of the people without compromising fundamental freedoms.

Related terms

judicial restraint: A judicial philosophy that encourages judges to limit the exercise of their own power, deferring to the legislative and executive branches unless there is a clear violation of the Constitution.

Charter of Rights and Freedoms:

Part of the Canadian Constitution that guarantees fundamental rights and freedoms for all Canadians, significantly influencing judicial decisions and interpretations.

precedent: A legal principle established in previous court decisions that judges use as a standard to guide their rulings in similar future cases.