The court of appeal’s decision rather makes hash of that, too. Ours is not a system of either parliamentary or judicial supremacy, but of constitutional supremacy, and has been since 1867. Framing this process, then, as a simple matter of courts vs. Parliament, rather than courts working with Parliament, is a distortion. In any case, courts were overturning bills on division of powers grounds long before the charter came along: no notwithstanding clause was around to save them. Parliamentary supremacy, like “states’ rights,” seems to mean something other than what it appears.

Source: National Post September 20, 2018 00:45 UTC