Skip to main content

Constitutional Jurisprudence on Federalism and Devolution in UK and Canada

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Constitutional Politics and the Territorial Question in Canada and the United Kingdom

Part of the book series: Comparative Territorial Politics ((COMPTPOL))

Abstract

The courts have different roles in policing Canadian federalism and Scottish devolution. In Canada, the division of competences is entrenched, limiting the powers of both levels. The constitution is difficult to amend. This has led the courts, initially headed by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and then the Supreme Court, to reinterpret the constitution in order to adapt to changing political, economic and social circumstances. From 1970 the Supreme Court explicitly adopted a progressive interpretation, according to which the constitution can evolve over time. This, according to Brouillet and Mullen, has led to an expansion of federal power. The Canadian Supreme Court has also taken account of constitutional conventions, although refusing to accept as a binding convention the need for Quebec to agree to major constitutional moves such as the patriation of the constitution in 1982.

By contrast, the courts have taken a restrictive view on the interpretation of the Scotland Act and the UK Supreme Court has explicitly rejected the idea that conventions can be legally enforced. This judicial restraint is helped by the fact that the division of competences between the two levels is reasonably clear and the lack of challenges from the UK Government. While the UK Government insists that it still has the power to legislate in devolved fields, it has generally accepted the convention that it will not do so. Such challenges as there have been have come mostly from private parties and often based on European Union law and the European Convention on Human Rights, which are directly applicable in Scotland in relation to devolved matters. There is also a general reluctance in British political culture to take matters to the courts, rather than resolving them through political challenges. Even the contentious matter of whether the Scottish Parliament could authorize a vote on independence was by-passed in an agreement between the UK and Scottish governments to transfer the power on a temporary basis, on condition that a clear question was asked. This remains an open issue in Quebec, which would return were a future Quebec government to attempt a third independence referendum.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Adams v Scottish Ministers, [2004] SC 665.

    Google Scholar 

  • Attorney General v National Assembly for Wales Commission [2012] UKSC 53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Attorney General v National Assembly for Wales Commission [2013] 1 A.C. 792.

    Google Scholar 

  • AXA General Insurance Ltd and others v Lord Advocate, [2012] SC (UKSC) 122.

    Google Scholar 

  • A v Scottish Ministers, [2001] SC 1 (Court of Session).

    Google Scholar 

  • Bank of Montreal v. Marcotte, [2014] 2 SCR.725.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brouillet, E. (2011). Canadian federalism and the principle of subsidiarity: Should we open pandora’s box? Supreme Court Law Review, 54(2d), 601–632.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brun, H., Tremblay, G., & Brouillet, E. (2014). Droit constitutionnel (6e ed., pp. 472–477). Éditions Yvon Blais: Cowansville.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cabinet Office. (2013). Devolution guidance note 10. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/guidance-on-devolution.

  • Canada (Attorney General) v. PHS Community Services Society, [2011] 3 SCR 134.

    Google Scholar 

  • Canadian Western Bank c. Alberta, [2007] 2 SCR 3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carter v. Canada (Attorney General), [2015] 1 SCR 331.

    Google Scholar 

  • Citizens Insurance Co. v. Parsons, [1881] 7 AC 96.

    Google Scholar 

  • Craig, P., & Walters, M. (1999). The courts, devolution and judicial review. Public Law, 274.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edward v. A.-G. for Canada, [1930] AC 124, 136.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gagnon, A.-G. (Ed.). (2009). Contemporary Canadian federalism: Foundations, traditions, institutions. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • General Motors of Canada Ltd. v. City National Leasing, [1989] 1 SCR 641.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansard, H. L. (1998). London: UK Parliament.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hogg, P. W. (2006). Paramountcy and tobacco. Supreme Court Law Review 34(2d), 335–344.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hogg, P. W. (2007). Constitutional law of Canada (loose-leaf edition). Toronto: Thomson Carswell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huscroft, G., & Miller, B. W. (Eds.). (2011). The challenge of originalism: Theories of constitutional interpretation. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Imperial Tobacco Ltd v Lord Advocate, [2012] UKSC 61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Imperial Tobacco Ltd v Lord Advocate, [2013] SC (UKSC) 153.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joint Liquidators of the Scottish Coal Co Ltd, Noters, [2014] SC 372.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kavanagh, A. (2003). The idea of a living constitution. Canadian Journal of Law & Jurisprudence, 16, 55–89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirkbi AG v. Gestions Ritvik Inc., [2005] 3 SCR 302.

    Google Scholar 

  • Labatt Breweries of Canada Ltd. v. Attorney General of Canada, [1980] 1 SCR 914.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leclair, J. (2003). The Supreme Court’s understanding of Federalism: Efficiency at the expense of diversity. Queen’s Law Journal, 28, 411–453.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liquidators of the Maritime Bank of Canada v. Receiver-General of New Brunswick, [1892] A.C. 437.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin v Most, [2010] UKSC 10; 2010 SC (UKSC) 40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Multiple Access Ltd. v. McCutcheon, [1982] 2 SCR 161.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, J. (2015). The Scottish question. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Assembly for Wales. (2012). Local Government Byelaws (Wales) Bill 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  • Privy Council [2003] 2 AC 602.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quebec (Attorney General) v. Canadian Owners and Pilots Association, [2010] 2 SCR 536.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quebec (Attorney General) v. Lacombe, [2010] 2 SCR 453.

    Google Scholar 

  • Québec (Procureur général) c. Canada (Procureur général), (2004) RJQ 399 (CAQ).

    Google Scholar 

  • Reference re Assisted Human Reproduction Act, [2010] 3 SCR 457.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reference re Employment Insurance Act (Can.), [2005] 2 SCR 669.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reference re Secession of Quebec, [1998] 2 SCR 217.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reference re Securities Act, [2011] 3 SCR 837.

    Google Scholar 

  • RJR-MacDonald Inc. v. Canada, [1995] 3 SCR 199.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson v Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, [2002] UKHL 32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. v. Saskatchewan, [2005] 1 SCR 188.

    Google Scholar 

  • Royal Society of Canada (RSC). (1985). The Constitution Act, 1867. Retrieved March 1, 2017, from http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const/page-1.html.

  • Re: Anti-Inflation Act, [1976] 2 SCR 373.

    Google Scholar 

  • Re: Objection by Quebec to a Resolution to amend the Constitution, [1982] 2 SCR 793.

    Google Scholar 

  • Re: Resolution to amend the Constitution, [1981] 1 SCR 753.

    Google Scholar 

  • R. v. Crown Zellerbach Canada Ltd., [1988] 1 SCR 401.

    Google Scholar 

  • R. v. Hydro-Québec, [1997] 3 SCR 213.

    Google Scholar 

  • R. (Miller) v. Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union [2016] EWHC 2768 (Admin).

    Google Scholar 

  • Saskatchewan (Attorney General) v. Lemare Lake Logging Ltd., [2015] 3 SCR 419.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scotch Whisky Association v Lord Advocate, [2014] CSIH 38 and [2016].

    Google Scholar 

  • Scotch Whisky Association v Lord Advocate, [2016] 2 C.M.L.R. 27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scotch Whisky Association v Lord Advocate, [2016] CSIH 77, 2016 S.L.T. 1141.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scotland Act 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  • Northern Ireland Act 1998.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tom Mullen .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Brouillet, E., Mullen, T. (2018). Constitutional Jurisprudence on Federalism and Devolution in UK and Canada. In: Keating, M., Laforest, G. (eds) Constitutional Politics and the Territorial Question in Canada and the United Kingdom. Comparative Territorial Politics. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-58074-6_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics