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.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Adams v Scottish Ministers, [2004] SC 665.
Attorney General v National Assembly for Wales Commission [2012] UKSC 53.
Attorney General v National Assembly for Wales Commission [2013] 1 A.C. 792.
AXA General Insurance Ltd and others v Lord Advocate, [2012] SC (UKSC) 122.
A v Scottish Ministers, [2001] SC 1 (Court of Session).
Bank of Montreal v. Marcotte, [2014] 2 SCR.725.
Brouillet, E. (2011). Canadian federalism and the principle of subsidiarity: Should we open pandora’s box? Supreme Court Law Review, 54(2d), 601–632.
Brun, H., Tremblay, G., & Brouillet, E. (2014). Droit constitutionnel (6e ed., pp. 472–477). Éditions Yvon Blais: Cowansville.
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.
Canadian Western Bank c. Alberta, [2007] 2 SCR 3.
Carter v. Canada (Attorney General), [2015] 1 SCR 331.
Citizens Insurance Co. v. Parsons, [1881] 7 AC 96.
Craig, P., & Walters, M. (1999). The courts, devolution and judicial review. Public Law, 274.
Edward v. A.-G. for Canada, [1930] AC 124, 136.
Gagnon, A.-G. (Ed.). (2009). Contemporary Canadian federalism: Foundations, traditions, institutions. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
General Motors of Canada Ltd. v. City National Leasing, [1989] 1 SCR 641.
Hansard, H. L. (1998). London: UK Parliament.
Hogg, P. W. (2006). Paramountcy and tobacco. Supreme Court Law Review 34(2d), 335–344.
Hogg, P. W. (2007). Constitutional law of Canada (loose-leaf edition). Toronto: Thomson Carswell.
Huscroft, G., & Miller, B. W. (Eds.). (2011). The challenge of originalism: Theories of constitutional interpretation. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Imperial Tobacco Ltd v Lord Advocate, [2012] UKSC 61.
Imperial Tobacco Ltd v Lord Advocate, [2013] SC (UKSC) 153.
Joint Liquidators of the Scottish Coal Co Ltd, Noters, [2014] SC 372.
Kavanagh, A. (2003). The idea of a living constitution. Canadian Journal of Law & Jurisprudence, 16, 55–89.
Kirkbi AG v. Gestions Ritvik Inc., [2005] 3 SCR 302.
Labatt Breweries of Canada Ltd. v. Attorney General of Canada, [1980] 1 SCR 914.
Leclair, J. (2003). The Supreme Court’s understanding of Federalism: Efficiency at the expense of diversity. Queen’s Law Journal, 28, 411–453.
Liquidators of the Maritime Bank of Canada v. Receiver-General of New Brunswick, [1892] A.C. 437.
Martin v Most, [2010] UKSC 10; 2010 SC (UKSC) 40.
Multiple Access Ltd. v. McCutcheon, [1982] 2 SCR 161.
Mitchell, J. (2015). The Scottish question. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
National Assembly for Wales. (2012). Local Government Byelaws (Wales) Bill 2012.
Privy Council [2003] 2 AC 602.
Quebec (Attorney General) v. Canadian Owners and Pilots Association, [2010] 2 SCR 536.
Quebec (Attorney General) v. Lacombe, [2010] 2 SCR 453.
Québec (Procureur général) c. Canada (Procureur général), (2004) RJQ 399 (CAQ).
Reference re Assisted Human Reproduction Act, [2010] 3 SCR 457.
Reference re Employment Insurance Act (Can.), [2005] 2 SCR 669.
Reference re Secession of Quebec, [1998] 2 SCR 217.
Reference re Securities Act, [2011] 3 SCR 837.
RJR-MacDonald Inc. v. Canada, [1995] 3 SCR 199.
Robinson v Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, [2002] UKHL 32.
Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. v. Saskatchewan, [2005] 1 SCR 188.
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.
Re: Objection by Quebec to a Resolution to amend the Constitution, [1982] 2 SCR 793.
Re: Resolution to amend the Constitution, [1981] 1 SCR 753.
R. v. Crown Zellerbach Canada Ltd., [1988] 1 SCR 401.
R. v. Hydro-Québec, [1997] 3 SCR 213.
R. (Miller) v. Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union [2016] EWHC 2768 (Admin).
Saskatchewan (Attorney General) v. Lemare Lake Logging Ltd., [2015] 3 SCR 419.
Scotch Whisky Association v Lord Advocate, [2014] CSIH 38 and [2016].
Scotch Whisky Association v Lord Advocate, [2016] 2 C.M.L.R. 27.
Scotch Whisky Association v Lord Advocate, [2016] CSIH 77, 2016 S.L.T. 1141.
Scotland Act 1998.
Northern Ireland Act 1998.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights 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
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-58074-6_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-58073-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-58074-6
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)