The Conflict of Law and Democracy: A Discussion of Canada v Mossop.
This essay will argue that of the judgements presented in the cases "Canada v Mossop" [1993] and "Egan v Canada" [1995] the one that is to be preferred from the standpoint of democracy is that of Chief Justice Lamer in the judgement he wrote for the majority in the case of "Mossop". As will be seen, this judgement is preferable because Lamer is cautious in his application of judicial powers to "override" the legislature, and he applies clearly defined standards to when this power should be exercised. In contrast, the Dissenting opinion of Justice L'Heureux-Dube will be shown to represent a clear and present threat to democratic processes in this country. This Dissenting opinion suggests a range of judicial power that is so vast as to render the democratically elected legislative branch effectively impotent. 9 pgs. Bibliography lists 1 source.
FREE Thesis Evaluation
