Suchergebnisse

Investigates the views of 108 appellate court judges & their role in policy making in the legal culture of Canada, drawing on 1993/94 personal interviews & civil & criminal files. It is found that the 1982 Chart of Rights has precipitated most of the respondents' (Rs') concerns regarding their judicial independence in that it has exposed their policy-making role, making them public figures in political controversies. The consensus of the Supreme Court judges, however, was that their new policy-making role was generally accepted by the public. In their newly public role, Rs expressed a decided preference for avoiding concurring opinions in their decisions, indicating that consensus was an important part of the collegial decision-making process in the lower appellate courts. This preference was not shared by the Supreme Court, which has been criticized in recent years for offering too many concurring opinions. It is suggested that the appellate courts' role in policy making is not inherently antidemocratic, but can foster basic democratic principles (eg, upholding the rule of law & minority rights protection). 1 Photograph, 25 References. Adapted from the source document.