The Statement of Principles

Thus far, I have stayed out of the controversy surrounding the Statement of Principles [SOP] because I have nothing new to add. Leonid has, in a series of posts, outlined the in-principle objections to the SOP, while others have suggested that the SOP is a modest, necessary remedy for a difficult problem.

But as the debate has evolved, I think something has been lost in the shuffle. Let’s assume that the SOP is constitutional. There are still a number of unanswered questions about the efficacy of the SOP, the way it was adopted, and the strength of the evidence underlying it. Related questions: does the SOP do anything to actually rectify the problem it identifies? And if not, if we believe that the objectors to the SOP are acting in good-faith, shouldn’t we expect better from the LSO given its status as a regulator in the public interest? I think so. That the SOP is toothless is a sign of regulatory excess and pointless, costly regulation that won’t even accomplish the goal it sets out to solve.

I do not purport to say anywhere here that discrimination is not a problem. The experience of racialized licensees should be prioritized, and the LSO should be applauded for turning its mind to this issue at all. At the same time, I think it is important that we do not denigrate the sincerity of the “conscientious objectors” to the SOP. I need not link to the various hues-and-cries on Twitter, assaulting people like Leonid and Murray Klippenstein for being racist, privileged, etc etc. I think we should take as a given that the conscientious objections are rooted in deeply-held philosophical commitments. For that reason we should respect them. Leonid’s objection, for example, is exhaustively set out in his post here, where he outlines the genesis of his general philosophical orientation and how it applies to the SOP. We should assume that if the SOP is enacted, it will exact a constitutional cost—one that may or may not rise to a constitutional violation, but a cost nonetheless.

The SOP was adopted as part of a suite of initiatives designed to address the problem of systemic racism.  The SOP is one requirement that exists in this suite of initiatives. The collection of initiatives was occasioned by a long consultation period, along with a study designed by the LSO and a communications firm “to encourage law firms to enhance diversity within firms, based on identified needs, and create reporting mechanisms.” The study consisted of:

  • Interviewing key informants
  • Organizing, managing, and recording the discussions in 14 focus groups with racialized lawyers and paralegals
  • Organizing, managing, and recording the discussions in two focus groups with non-racialized lawyers and paralegals; and
  • Designing a 35-question survey and collecting data from a large group of lawyers

Somehow, from this process, the SOP was born.  None of the evidence gathered in the study pointed to the SOP as a necessary—or even desired—policy mechanism to accomplish the goals of the overall LSO Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion [EDI] Initiative. The causal link between the SOP and “accelerating culture shift” was never explored by any data in the study. All that was established by the study was that there was, indeed, discrimination in the profession.

But even on that score, there is no clarity on the breadth of the problem, and for that reason, no clarity on the mechanisms required to solve it. In this case, the challengers to the SOP have outlined some compelling reasons in an expert report why we might doubt that the SOP is a tailored, evidence-based policy—assuming, again, that the criticisms of the SOP levelled by a number of quarters is in good-faith. For one, there is a major confirmation bias issue in the study commissioned by the LSO. Survey respondents were already aware about the goals of the study. Participants in the focus groups were separated based on whether they were racialized or not, which does not lend itself to a random discussion of the issues. Perhaps most prominently, there was a sampling bias problem that led to the data underpinning the recommendations presented to Convocation—only a small portion of the over 40 000 licencees responded to the survey data, and according to the expert report, “it is possible that some licensees completed the survey multiple times…”

None of this should be taken as a given simply because an expert says so. This is an expert report filed by a party in the litigation. But it at least raises legitimate questions about the methodology underpinning the solution adopted by the LSO. Clearly, discrimination might be a problem in the profession, but we have no idea how much of a problem it is.

Even if we had some scope of the problem, the SOP is not necessarily linked to solving it. If we assume that objectors to the SOP are acting in good-faith, and therefore we believe that there will be some cost to them associated with abiding by the LSO’s edict, then we should be doubly sure the SOP will actually do something to solve the problem it purports to solve. But the LSO has offered no evidence that this particular policy mechanism is required, cost-efficient, or is even relatively better than other options. Nor has it explained why this policy mechanism is necessary for the soundness of the rest of its EDI policies.

Why should anyone care about this? Shouldn’t the LSO simply just be able to act in the face of a problem?

We know that inclusion in the legal profession is a problem, but as a regulator with delegated legislative authority under the Law Society Act, the legislature implicitly subjected the LSO to democratic norms. It established a system of elections in the enabling legislation itself, which can be interpreted to express a legislative desire to ensure that there is some accountability mechanism within the LSO for the exercise of its powers that are legislative in character. The LSO has the power to compel licensees through rules and bylaws, none of which need to be subject to any approval by the Cabinet (unlike the exercise of delegated legislative power to make regulations—see 63(1) of the Law Society Act). While there is an obvious mechanism to hold benchers and the administration of the LSO accountable through elections, the power of compulsion that the LSO exercises—and the broad powers it has been conferred by legislatures and the courts—counsel in favour of holding the LSO to robust standards of evidence-based policy-making. In other words, not only do we need to know that discrimination is a problem, we need to know whether it is truly “systemic” in order to craft appropriate solutions.

There is no evidence, even on a common-sense basis, that the SOP will do anything to solve the problem it identifies, assuming the problem is framed as the LSO says it is. One might say that the SOP will force licensees to reflect on the things they must do to ensure a more inclusive profession. I think this is Pollyannaish. More likely, people will file rote statements without reflecting on them, as Atrisha Lewis points out. Or they will simply write something that fits with what the licensee perceives the LSO to want. Unless the LSO is going to police the substantive content of each filing, there will be no way to know who is genuinely reflecting on the issue. Given the vagueness of what constitutes a “violation” of the requirement, we can expect  discretion of prosecutions under the Law Society Act against those who do not adopt a “proper” SOP. The costs continue piling up when one thinks of defending the SOP in court, and the cost of enforcement.

Someone has to ask if the EDI initiative requires this SOP given the costs it exacts against principles of good government and against the good-faith constitutional objectors. The SOP seems to be questionable response to a problem of unknown proportions that raises significant constitutional concerns, even if those concerns do not constitute an in-law constitutional violation. I gather that the LSO perhaps did not expect this to be an issue, and are now painted into a corner. Like most administrators, they do not want to cede any regulatory power. So they must defend the SOP in court. But I think even they must recognize that the SOP is probably a bad policy mechanism for the problem of discrimination, no matter its scope.

The LSO should be held to a higher standard than this. We should expect evidence-based policy-making in the administrative state, especially where the LSO has the means (through the exorbitant fees it charges) to conduct properly designed research studies and to lessen the informational uncertainty designed to solve the problem. Some literature in administrative governance focuses on the cost of acquiring information within public institutions. Here, the costs for the LSO on this particular problem are not particularly high. And yet, we are left with a dog of a policy mechanism, one that is unlikely (even on a common sense basis) to solve the problem it purports to solve. At the same time, the costs of implementing it and enforcing it—both monetary and constitutional—are high.

All of this puts the SOP on the horns of the dilemma. Either it does something to accomplish the goal it sets out—it compels people to concern themselves with EDI as the LSO understands it—or it does nothing to accomplish anything, in which case its costly. Surely our public regulator, that we ensconce in yearly fees, can do better.

This is fundamentally different than the claim that the SOP doesn’t go far enough. The problem is that it doesn’t go anywhere at all. I doubt it will solve any problem whatsoever.

A Small Win on Admin Law Expertise

I’ve written before how the Supreme Court’s approach to expertise is wrongheaded in a number of ways. Practically, by saying that expertise “inheres in a tribunal as an institution,” (Edmonton East, at para 33), the Court has simply asserted a fact that is unlikely to be empirically true across the mass of varied decision-makers. Rather, “a tribunal” is not “an institution.” The administrative state consists of many institutions, some expert, some inexpert, deciding many different questions. This is all in addition to the formal point that, in absence of legislative language specifying expertise as a reason for deference, courts do not have carte blanche to make up reasons for deference that the legislature—which created the decision-maker—would not have approved.

The Federal Court of Appeal’s recent case in CPR v Univar, without taking as hard of a line on expertise as I have above, did interestingly justify the assertion of expertise in the particular case. I view this as a positive development from the Supreme Court’s neo-Cartesian  “I-say-therefore-it-is” reasoning in Edmonton East.

CPR v Univar involved a “level of service” complaint under the Canadian Transportation Act. Univar is a distributor company located on the island of Richmond in BC. Richmond is connected to CP’s rail system through a bridge. That bridge was damaged by a fire, and CPR instituted an embargo prohibiting movement of rail over the bridge. It later denied service at all to Univar because, to CPR, “the fire was a force majeure event” causing irreparable damage. Univar claimed that this denial of service breached the level of service obligation under the Act.

The Canadian Transportation Agency [CTA] found in favour of Univar, concluding that CPR breached its level of service obligations “except for two ‘reasonable pause’ periods arising from force majeure events” [9]. In reviewing this decision, the Federal Court of Appeal (which hears direct statutory appeals from the CTA), concluded that the standard of review applicable to the CTA’s decision was reasonableness. In part, this was because of the hornbook law statement that “decision-makers’ interpretations of their home statue, with which they have particular familiarity call for deference when judicially reviewed” [14].

The Court could have stopped there, as the Supreme Court does. Luckily, it did not. It is worth reproducing the Court’s explanation of why the home statute presumption makes particular sense in this case [15]:

This Court has recognized on a number of occasions, and in various contexts, the Agency’s expertise (Canadian National Railway Company v. Richardson Limited, 2015 FCA 180 at paras. 25-31; Canadian National Railway Company v. Canadian Transportation Agency, 2010 FCA 65 at paras. 27-29; Canadian National Railway Company v. Greenstone (Municipality of), 2008 FCA 395 at para. 52). Such expertise is particularly obvious when adjudicating level of service complaints under the level of service provisions of the Act. As this Court stated in Canadian National Railway Company v. Emerson Milling Inc., 2017 FCA 79 at para. 72 (Emerson Milling), the assessment of the service level obligations “lies at the very bullseye of its regulatory know-how and mandate, the very reason why Parliament has vested the Agency with jurisdiction over the merits of cases like this and has left us with just a reviewing role.

This sort of analysis is clearly an improvement over the Edmonton East approach. To be fair, it does stop short of endorsing the formal notion that expertise should be specified by the legislature, as Rennie J and Nadon J did in their reasons in Bell. Nonetheless, the Court in CPR v Univar at least does some work on the practical criticism of expertise.

This is an important development. One of the flaws of the institutional expertise justification advanced by Karakatsanis J is its lack of empirical justification when considering the sorts of questions a decision-maker might have to confront. In a statutory scheme like the Act, the Agency assesses many sorts of claims, some that are closer to its core mandate. There is no reason to presume that because a tribunal is expert in one particular area of its statutory mandate that it will be expert in all of the areas of its mandate. CPR v Univar seems to implicitly endorse this proposition, if only by suggesting that the level of service question is a core question of adjudicative policy that clearly engages the CTA’s expertise.

By at least explaining the reason why it afforded deference with reference to some empirical benchmark, the Court of Appeal significantly improved the Supreme Court’s justification-wanting reasoning for deference. That’s a small win, in my book.

Textual Judicial Supremacy

The Canadian constitution’s text makes it clear that judges must have the last word on its interpretation

In my comment on the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Frank v Canada (Attorney General), 2019 SCC 1, I criticized the dissenting judges’ demand that courts defer to Parliament’s choice to limit rights protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Section 1 of the Charter provides that it “guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society”. This wording, I wrote, “requires a demonstration” that a given limitation of a protected right is justified, “not judicial acquiescence on the basis that Parliament knows best”.

My friend and sometime debating partner Geoff Sigalet put it to me in conversation that my interpretation is incorrect, and indeed pernicious. I am wrong, he believes, to think that judges must have the last word on what is and what is not “demonstrably justified”. Section 1, after all, doesn’t say “demonstrably justified to the satisfaction of a court”. Couldn’t a legislature pass its own judgment on these matters, a judgment that would be entitled to the respect of courts and of malcontents such as I? I am not persuaded. In my view, the constitutional text―not specifically section 1, but rather section 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982―does require that judges, not the legislature or the executive, have the last word on whether the Charter has been infringed, including the question of whether a limitation on a right is demonstrably justified.

Section 52(1) provides that “[t]he Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of Canada, and any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect”. Pursuant to section 52(2), the supreme constitution, inconsistency with which invalidates any other law, includes the Charter, the other parts of the Constitution Act, 1982―notably the amending formulae in Part V of that Act―and the Constitution Act 1867, which provides, among other things, for a distribution of legislative powers between the Dominion and the Provinces, as well as protections for judicial independence, free trade (nullified by the Supreme Court), etc. Note that section 52 makes no distinction between the Charter and other components of the Constitution of Canada. All are equally the supreme law of Canada. There is thus no textual warrant for treating the Charter differently from the rest of the constitution; if the courts have the last word on the meaning and application of the rest, they do so when it comes to the Charter too.

Now section 52(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982 is not, substantively, an innovation. As Brian Bird helpfully details, it is a replacement for section 2 of the imperial Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865, which provided for the supremacy of imperial legislation applicable to the colonies over that of the colonies to which such legislation applied. In particular, section 2 ensured the supremacy of what was originally an imperial statute, the British North America Act 1867, which we now call the Constitution Act, 1867, over any legislation enacted in Canada (except, of course, to the extent that the BNA Act itself authorized the Parliament of Canada or provincial legislatures to modify or depart from some of its provisions). Section 52(1) takes up the baton of constitutional supremacy, and ensures that it is now provided for by a Canadian law, subject to modification through the Canadian constitutional amendment process, rather than by an imperial statute whose very title is unsuitable to Canada’s circumstances as an independent nation.

As Mr. Bird further points out, the Supreme Court has recognized that section 52(1) preserved continuity in Canada’s constitutional arrangements. In the Reference re Manitoba Language Rights, [1985] 1 SCR 721, the Court emphasized that “[s]ection 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982 does not alter the principles which have provided the foundation for judicial review over the years”, (746) under the Colonial Laws Validity Act regime. Meanwhile, in R v Big M Drug Mart, [1985] 1 SCR 295, the Court held, again with reference to both the Colonial Laws Validity Act and to section 52, that accused persons could always demand that a court rule on the constitutionality of the statutes they are said to be infringing, “whether that challenge is with respect to ss. 91 and 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867 or with respect to the limits imposed on the legislatures by the Constitution Act, 1982“. (313) In short, the regime of constitutional supremacy that existed with respect to the then-British North America Acts prior to 1982 remains in force, following the patriation of the constitution and the enactment of section 52(1), for these texts and, on the same terms, for the Constitution Act, 1982.

I think these decisions are quite clearly correct. Textually, section 52(1) is an updated, but substantially identical, reincarnation of section 2 of the Colonial Laws Validity Act. It uses the words “inconsistent with” in place of “repugnant to”, and “of no force and effect” in the place of “absolutely void and inoperative”, but the underlying principle is the same: one set of laws (formerly, all imperial legislation “extending to” Canada; now, more narrowly, “the Constitution of Canada”) has a higher status than ordinary laws enacted in Canada, whether by Parliament or by the provincial legislatures. As a result, such ordinary laws are invalid insofar, although only insofar, as they contradict the higher law. If anything was to change on April 17, 1982, when section 52(1) succeeded the Colonial Laws Validity Act, such a momentous would surely have been flagged by clear language, something very different from what we find in section 52(1).

The only innovation in section 52(1) is the use of the phrase “supreme law” to characterize the Constitution of Canada. The supremacy of Westminster legislation is a given in the post-Glorious Revolution and pre-Statute of Westminster, 1931 system, so it is implicit in section 2 of the Colonial Laws Validity Act. Section 52(1) makes the supremacy of what is left of imperial legislation explicit. But the phrase “supreme law” (emphasis added) also suggests that, like any law, the Constitution of Canada is subject to interpretation and enforcement by the courts―not by legislatures. Granted, by 1982, the Supreme Court had conceded deference on the interpretation of some legal provisions to administrative adjudicators. But that concession was premised―wisely or not is beside the point here―on these adjudicators’ expertise, including legal expertise in their particular area of jurisdiction. I do not think that Parliament would have been understood to have such expertise.

In any case, whether or not the original public meaning of the phrase “supreme law” without further context requires judicial supremacy, the context removes whatever ambiguity the words alone might carry. There was no doubt that, under the Colonial Laws Validity Act regime, it was the courts’ power and duty to determine whether an enactment was “repugnant to” an imperial statute, and therefore “absolutely void and inoperative”. Even the “presumption of constitutionality” to which the courts occasionally referred was is, in principle, nothing more than the idea that legislatures would not intend to exceed their constitutional powers, and their enactments would therefore not lightly be read as doing so―provided that they admitted of a different reading. It was always the courts’ responsibility to verify that this was indeed the case. And, to repeat, there is no reason at all to suppose that this approach was intended or understood to change in 1982, and the courts have never said that it did change. Indeed, I do not think that those who argue for judicial deference in Charter cases seriously contend that section 52 calls for a deferential approach to federalism, or to the independence of the judiciary protected by Part VII of the Constitution Act, 1867, or to the amending formulae of Part V of the Constitution Act, 1982.

But, as I have argued above, there is no textual basis for treating treating the Charter differently from the other parts of the Constitution of Canada when it comes to deciding which institution is given the last word on its interpretation and on whether it has been complied with. The constitutional text, read in its historical and legal context, tells us that judicial supremacy is sauce for federalism’s, judicial independence’s, and constitutional amendment’s geese; it is also sauce for the Charter‘s gander. Needless to say, the text cannot tell us whether this is a good thing. I am inclined to think so; others disagree. It’s certainly possible that our constitution is flawed in this, as it is flawed in many other ways. But the constitution is what it is, good or bad. Those who wish that it were different ought to persuade enough of us to amend it to have it changed.

The Diceyan Trope

Metaphors, labels, and particular phrases seem to be a constant theme running through Canadian law. In virtually every area of public law, the Supreme Court deploys clever labels and metaphors to convey ideas that are bundled with certain inferences or assumptions about the ideas themselves. The most famous, perhaps, is the living tree model of constitutional interpretation, which is so ingrained that it has taken academic articles to dislodge its place in the constitutional zeitgeist. Other examples abound.

On one hand, these linguistic devices are useful shorthand. Rather than explaining complex concepts, they allow the Court and others to quickly express a complicated idea in a way that lawyers and academics can understand. On the other hand, they shortcircuit critical analysis of the ideas they represent. Rather than acting as useful stand-ins for complex ideas, I fear that they have become broadside representations of certain way of viewing Canadian law; concepts that, through frequent usage, have become immovable stones that represent closely-held positions.

Perhaps this is most evident with one of the most widely-deployed tropes: the attack on one of the dark lords of administrative law, A.V. Dicey.

I confess that the inspiration for this post was Justice Abella’s recent speech in New Zealand, in which she, as usual, attacked the “Diceyan” conception of administrative law. Lest one should think this is an isolated incident, this Diceyan label also infected the Vavilov and Bell/NFL hearings at the Supreme Court, when one intervener argued that other Commonwealth jurisdictions have gotten by without a standard of review analysis, and a judge retorted that this is because they are trapped in a Diceyan mode of law. As Audrey Macklin explains respecting this exchange, “[The] insinuation behind this remark is that these benighted commonwealth judges are trapped in some nineteenth century intellectual dungeon.”

I fear that this insinuation is the one meant by Justice Abella. Bundled within the Diceyan attack is a number of presuppositions. As far as I can tell, the attack on Diceyanism is an arrow in the quiver of those judges and scholars who were inculcated in the New Deal and Keynesian era of technocracy, expertise, and social policy.  Often called administrative law “functionalists,” (people like John Willis and Harry Arthurs) the functionalists worried about Diceyan administrative law as a way to fill-in conservative ideals under the rule of law rubric. To their minds, cases like CUPE [1978] best recognize the social policy aims of tribunals and their technocratic expertise.

I’ve written before about why these arguments are ill-fitted to the modern administrative state.  Administrative decision-makers now no longer operate in a narrow field of social policy, but also inhabit the most repressive areas of the state: prisons and border officers, for example. Technocratic expertise is one thing, but legal expertise is quite another, and decision-makers are now tasked more than ever with deciding complex legal problems for which they are not necessarily trained. Put differently, there is no reason to believe that an expert in subject-matter A will necessarily have expertise in legal area B. Nor is there any reason to believe that the expert will be able to explain her conclusions in language that permits accountability through judicial review–this is the problem of immunization to which the Federal Court of Appeal is increasingly drawing attention.  The assumptions underlying the functionalist view, if they ever existed, no longer exist as a general matter.

In fact, there is much about Dicey to be admired. The first consideration, though, is determining what Dicey actually meant. While functionalists try to paint Diceyan as a rank anti-administrativist, there is some nuance to his position. Dicey was comparing with a particular style of administrative law—“droit administratif”—which Dicey thought was alien to English legal principles. Particularly, he believed that a separate body of law governed relationships between citizens and the state, as opposed to citizens and other citizens. State actors were not subject to scrutiny by the ordinary courts, but rather special administrative courts. The concern for Dicey wasn’t the exercise of delegated power—he actually allowed for the exercise of legislative powers by delegated actors in the English context, entities like municipal bodies. Instead, it was the worry that different rules might privilege state actors. This concern still worries us today.

But administrative law as we now know it is not about granting rights and privileges to state actors (putting aside ideas of qualified immunity). State actors are subject to the ordinary jurisdiction of the courts. The only doctrine that dilutes this oversight is self-imposed: doctrines of deference that courts created themselves to grant delegated actors “policy space.” No matter, while administrative law as we know it arose subsequent to Dicey, Dicey is probably not as radical as his opponents make him out to be.

What’s more, Dicey’s fundamental principles remain relevant today. His explanation of the rule of law contained within it the seeds of a more substantive approach, one of “legality” underlying all exercises of public power. This is still a useful and important concept, particularly as we consider how best to control discretion exercised by administrative actors. There is nothing in Dicey’s principle of legality that implies a necessarily conservative orientation. All it insists is that courts have an important, perhaps exclusive, role to play in policing the boundaries of the administrative state.  And unless we are willing to attack the independence of judges by insinuating that their policy preferences infect their judicial duty, maybe we should not be so worried about courts like the functionalists were.

More broadly, Dicey did attempt to wrestle with the distinction between parliamentary sovereignty and the rule of law, as I outline here. This is a concept that continues to bedevil us today in discussions about standard of review, and the extent to which Parliament’s law should oust the ability of the courts to review decisions on a de novo basis. As Mark Walters aptly noted in his contribution to the Dunsmuir Decade symposium:

Dicey made some mistakes and the punishment for his sins seems to be that his name is forever associated with that flawed “Diceyan” understanding of public law. However, some of the most difficult and underappreciated passages in his famous book, Law of the Constitution, come in the course of an attempt to explain how judges may resolve the tension between the rule of law and parliamentary sovereignty—passages which make little sense unless we assume that the “spirit of legality” that he says shapes all legal meaning is a substantive ideal that justifies and legitimates the exercise of governmental powers

This Diceyan concept—identified by Walters—is still centrally important today. But it has been forgotten, in part due to the negative inference drawn by those who label particular proposals as “Diceyan.”

This is not to say that these arguments are altogether immune from attack. For example, it is controversial to say that courts should have an exclusive role to play in the rule of law. In the modern era, a focus on courts also tends to crowd out discussion about the best controls on administrative discretion that exist: those imposed by Parliament itself.  I also think that Diceyanism can be used to justify an all-out, Phillip Hamburger-style attack on the existence of the administrative state writ large. For some, this is a good thing. But for others, there may be reason to think Diceyanism is open to abuse.

My point here is not to say that Dicey was right or wrong–clearly, like most humans, he was a bit of both. Either way, to my mind, it is not a foregone conclusion that Diceyan administrative law is a wholly improper theory of the administrative state. Like most theories, Diceyan administrative law contains important principles that should animate future research directions, but it is not a cure-all. Invoking the Diceyan trope does little to further intelligent debate about what administrative law should look like in the 21st century.

Australia 1:0 Canada

Canadians have much to learn from the Australian High Court’s take on election spending limits for “third parties”

The High Court of Australia has just delivered Unions NSW v New South Wales [2019] HCA 1, a decision that should be of interest to readers who are concerned with freedom of expression in the electoral context ― a topical issue in Canada, given the recent imposition of further restrictions in this area by the recently enacted Bill C-76. The decision resulted from a challenge by a number of labour unions to New South Wales legislation that reduced the maximum amount a “third party” ― that is anyone not a candidate at an election or a political party ― is allowed to spend on campaigning in a nearly-six-month period preceding an election, from 1,050,000AUD (jut under a million Canadian) to 500,000AUD. The High Court unanimously held that the legislation was contrary to the implied freedom of political communication, which it had previously read into the Australian constitution‘s provisions requiring “representative” government.

The plurality judgment, by Chief Justice Kiefel and Justices Bell and Keane, finds that the third party spending limits are unconstitutional. That they restrict the ability to communicate is not in dispute. And while the plurality is prepared to assume that these limits are imposed for the legitimate purposes of levelling the campaigning playing field and preventing the wealthy from “drowning out” the voices of the less fortunate, they are not justified. Experts consulted prior to the enactment of the legislation provided no particular justification for recommending that the then-existing spending limits be reduced. A Parliamentary committee, however, recommend that the legislature look into the actual spending needs of third parties, and this was not done either. As a result, there is no reason for saying that the reduced limits are “reasonably necessary”.

Justice Gageler agrees with the plurality’s disposition of the case. He is persuaded of the legitimacy of the state’s pursuit “of substantive fairness in a manner compatible with maintenance of the constitutionally prescribed system of representative and responsible government”. [91] This might, in principle, justify much lower spending limits for third parties, which campaign on single issues, than for parties that must address a broad range of issues in their quest to form a government. However, “[i]t is not self-evident, and it has not been shown, that the cap set in the amount of $500,000 leaves a third-party campaigner with a reasonable opportunity to present its case”. [101] Absent such a showing, the restriction on the freedom of communication is not justified.

Justice Nettle’s conclusion is similar. He accepts the legitimacy of the objective of creating a level electoral playing field ― one on which political parties will be primary players ― and agrees that a legislatures may from time to time review the measures it takes to ensure fairness, including by lowering spending caps previously enacted. However, there must be a justification for whatever measures it takes from time to time. Such a justification is missing in this case. Although it was recommended that more evidence on the needs of third parties be collected, “for reasons which do not appear, that recommendation went unheeded. It is as if Parliament simply went ahead … without pausing to consider whether a cut of as much as 50 per cent was required”. [117]

Justice Gordon, like the plurality, assumes that restrictions on third party spending pursue a legitimate purpose, which she characterizes as the privileging of political parties and candidates. However, in the absence of evidence about the actual need for restrictions set at their current level, “the Court … cannot be satisfied that the level of the expenditure cap is reasonably appropriate and adapted to achieve the asserted constitutionally permissible end”. [150] It was for the State to show that the restriction it seeks to impose was justified, and it has not done so.

For his part, Justice Edelman considers that the reduction in the spending limits imposed on third parties, even as the limits imposed on political parties rose, cannot be explained by the purposes of maintaining a fair and corruption-free electoral system. Rather, it must have had an “additional purpose”, which “was to ensure that the voice of third-party campaigners was quieter than that of political parties and candidates”. [159] In other words, the reduction’s aim was “to burden the freedom of political communication of third-party campaigners”. [160] Justice Edelman considers that, although laws that rely on the relative silencing of some views in order to ensure that all can be heard are legitimate, to aim only at silencing some voices “is incompatible with the maintenance of the constitutionally prescribed system of representative and responsible government”, and legislation so motivated is “invalid”. [160]

Needless to say, I am not qualified to comment on whether the High Court is correct as a matter of Australian law. What I can do is compare its decision with that of the Supreme Court of Canada in Harper v Canada (Attorney-General), 2004 SCC 33, [2004] 1 SCR 827, which addressed much the same issues. (Readers will recall that I am not a fan of Harper, to put it mildly, and included it in my list of the Supreme Court’s five worst decisions of the last half-century in this blog’s recent Twelve Days of Christmas symposium.)

This is most obviously so on the issue of deference to the legislature on the issue of the appropriateness of a limitation of the freedom of (political) expression, and the evidence required for the government to make this case. The Harper majority insisted that courts should approach legislative choices with deference. In its view, “[t]he legislature is not required to provide scientific proof based on concrete evidence of the problem it seeks to address in every case”, and that “a reasoned apprehension of … harm” [Harper, 77] is sufficient to restrict fundamental freedoms protected by the Canadian constitution.

This approach is explicitly rejected in Unions NSW. While the Australian judges avoid directly criticizing the Harper majority, both the plurality opinion and Justice Nettle explicitly side with the “strong dissent” of Chief Justice McLachlin and Justice Major (joined by Justice Binnie). The plurality takes a dim view of the submission “that Parliament does not need to provide evidence for the legislation it enacts [and] is entitled to make the choice as to what level of restriction is necessary to meet future problems”. [44] When legislative choice are made in a way that burden the freedom of political communication, they must be justified. Similarly, Justice Gageler speaks of the need for a “compelling justification”, and insists that “[i]f a court cannot be satisfied of a fact the existence of which is necessary in law to provide a constitutional basis for impugned legislation, … the court has no option but to pronounce the legislation invalid.” [95] Justice Gordon insists that “the Court must … be astute not to accept at face value the assertion that freedom of communication will, unless curtailed by a reduction in the cap to $500,000, bring about corruption and distortion of the political process”. [148]

Another point of contrast between Harper and Unions NSW is the treatment of the so-called “egalitarian model of elections” designed in part to favour the interests of political parties and candidates over those of the civil society groups, disparagingly consigned to the status of “third parties”. According to Harper, election campaigns must focus attention on parties and candidates, including by ensuring that any other participants in the public debate, except the media, will behave unobtrusively. By contrast, the plurality opinion in Unions NSW explicitly rejects the submission that candidates and parties deserve preferential treatment, advanced in part on the basis that elections are “not a choice between ideas, policies, views or beliefs except insofar as such choice may be reflected in the electoral choice between candidates”. [39] Rather, the plurality says, “ss 7 and 24 of the Constitution guarantee the political sovereignty of the people of the Commonwealth by ensuring that their choice of elected representatives is a real choice, that is, a choice that is free and well-informed” [40] ― including by third parties. Justice Gageler, of course, takes the contrary view on this point. Justice Edelman’s position is more complex. He explicitly endorses “a Rawlsian, egalitarian model” [178] in which spending limits prevent some speakers from “drowning out” others. However, he also considers that it is not legitimate to target particular speakers for silencing apart from such an anti-drowning out purpose.

A last difference between Harper and Unions NSW worth highlighting is recognition by Justice Gageler of “the propensity of an elected majority to undervalue, and, at worst, to seek to protect itself against adverse electoral consequences resulting from, political communication by a dissenting minority”. [66] Justice Gageler refers to prior cases where the risk of a government legislating to limit political competition the better to maintain itself in office was explicitly adverted to. Such legislation, he notes, is incompatible with presuppositions of the Australian constitutional order. Although he finds that, in this case, “[t]here is no suggestion of abuse of incumbency” [85] by one party against others, this clear-eyed position is in contrast to that of the Harper majorityr, which ignored the possibility that incumbent governments favour legislation that excludes “third parties” from electoral campaigns in order to avoid unpleasant criticism and so reduce the odds of losing power.

There are more interesting things in the Unions NSW decision than I have room to discuss in this post. For example, Justice Gageler’s comments about the role courts in finding facts that are relevant to deciding whether a statute is constitutional are in contrast to the position of the Supreme Court of Canada in cases such as Canada (Attorney General) v Bedford, 2013 SCC 72, [2013] 3 SCR 1101, and should be very nutritious food for thought for those who are skeptical of the Bedford requirement of deference to trial judges. Justice Eledman’s comments on identifying statutory purpose (and in particular the role of general statements of purpose in the legislation) are also very interesting.

Overall, based on this one decision, I think that Canadians have a great deal to learn from Australians. Admittedly, the length of the High Court’s decisions is a deterrent ― Unions NSW is about 85 pages long, and I take it that it’s pretty short by Australian standards. That’s the cost of so many judges delivering full individual reasons. But the upside is that interesting ideas don’t get swept under the carpet in the process of getting to a set of reasons many judges can sign onto. I’m not saying the Supreme Court of Canada should go back to having each judge deliver his or her own reasons (though I wonder sometimes) but, at any rate, reading the Australian decisions may well be worth our while. In particular, the willingness of the Australian judges to keep a legislature accountable for imposing limits on the freedom of political expression without justification is a welcome reminder that their Canadian counterparts can do much more to protect individual rights in the electoral realm, and elsewhere.


Why I oppose the Law Society of Ontario’s “statement of principles”

I have repeatedly argued, here and elsewhere, that the Law Society of Ontario’s requirement that its members “acknowledge[] [an] obligation to promote equality, diversity and inclusion generally, and in your behaviour towards colleagues, employees, clients and the public” by means of a “statement of principles” is wrong in principle, illegal, and unconstitutional. Fortunately, Ryan Alford and Murray Klippenstein are challenging the validity of the Law Society’s demands, backed by the Canadian Constitution Foundation. For my part, I have provided an affidavit for their application (which has been served on the Law Society, but not filed with the court just yet), primarily to illustrate that the “statement of principles” policy applies far more widely than do non-discrimination obligations under the Ontario or federal human rights legislation, to which the Law Society has been endeavouring to misleadingly equate it.

But of course the affidavit is also an opportunity to explain why I oppose the Law Society’s demands, and will not comply with them, so I thought it worthwhile to reproduce an adapted version of it here. (I have removed some of the affidavit-y bells and whistles, so that it reads more like a normal post, and have added some links.) Of course, since an affidavit is meant to be a personal statement, not legal argument, it is a more personal and less argumentative text than my normal posts. Here goes.

I am a Senior Lecturer (a position equivalent to that of an Assistant or Associate Professor) at the Auckland University of Technology Law School. I hold degrees in civil law and common law (BCL/LLB (Hons)) from the McGill University Faculty of Law, as well as a Master’s degree (LLM (Legal Theory) and a doctorate (JSD) from the New York University School of Law.

I was called to the Bar in June 2010 and have been a member of the Law Society of Upper Canada, now the Law Society of Ontario, (the “Law Society”) in good standing ever since. However, I am not and have never been a practicing lawyer. From September 2010 to August 2016, I was a full-time student; since August 2016, I have been a full-time academic. I have no clients and no employees. To my knowledge, no one among my co-workers is a fellow licensee of the Law Society. I have resided in New Zealand since August 2016, and have not resided in Ontario since August 2010.

My Interest in Freedom of Conscience and the Rights of Others

My research interests range broadly across constitutional and administrative law, with a focus on Canada. Among the areas on which I have published is the freedom of conscience and religion. My LLM thesis, subsequently published as a peer-reviewed article, was concerned with religious exemptions and the Rule of Law, exploring the importance of individual conscience in reconciling the claims of religious believers and the demands of legal conformity. Another of my peer-reviewed articles argued that the reference to the Queen in the Canadian citizenship oath infringes the freedom of conscience of those republicans who are required to take it.

In addition to scholarship, I have written about freedom of conscience and religion in multiple posts on the award-winning blog Double Aspect, which I created in 2012, of which I first was the sole author (until July 2018) and now am a co-author. In particular, I have been critical of various attempts in Québec to deprive state employees of their right to wear so-called “ostentatious religious symbols”. I have also published an op-ed on this issue. I also published multiple posts on freedom of conscience of republicans objecting to the citizenship oath.

In this work, as well as in writing on a number of other issues (notably relating to freedom of expression in the electoral context), I have consistently championed the rights of individuals and groups with whom I profoundly disagree, including many whose views I reject. I have defended religious exemptions and other forms of accommodation for religious believers, but I am agnostic. I have defended the freedom of conscience of republicans, but I am a monarchist. I have defended the freedom of expression of student movements and trade unions, but I strongly disagree with the aims of both.

The Statement of Principles Requirement

At the December 2, 2016 meeting of Convocation, the Law Society adopted the requirement that each licensee “create and abide by an individual Statement of Principles that acknowledges [his or her] obligation to promote equality, diversity and inclusion generally, and in [his or her] behaviour towards colleagues, employees, clients and the public”.

I learned of the adoption of the Statement of Principles requirement after the fact, via an e-mail sent by the Law Society on September 13, 2017, entitled “New Obligations for 2017 — Actions you need to take”. That e-mail said that: “You will need to create an abide by an individual Statement of Principles that acknowledges your obligation to promote equality, diversity generally, and in your behaviour towards colleagues, employees, clients, and the public.” Until then, I had not received any correspondence from the Law Society on that topic or which alluded to it, and was not aware that Convocation had adopted the Statement of Principles requirement.

This requirement is applicable to me as a licensee of the Law Society, even though I am not, and never have been, practicing law in Ontario, and, to my knowledge, have no colleagues, students or subordinates who, are licensed to practice law in Ontario. As the Law Society explains on a “Frequently Asked Questions” page on its website, “[i]f you are licensed by the Law Society, you must meet this requirement regardless of whether you are currently practising law or providing legal services”.

I have not complied with the Statement of Principles requirement. I have provided the following explanation for my refusal to do so in my 2017 Lawyer Annual Report:

No existing legislation, primary or delegated, imposes on me or on any lawyer in Ontario an obligation to promote equality, diversity and inclusion. In particular, human rights legislation and the Rules of Professional Conduct prohibit engaging in discrimination, but say nothing of promoting any particular values or ideals. The Law Society has no right to be demanding that its members acknowledge an obligation that does not exist, and one that could not be constitutionally imposed, since in a free society, the state or its instrumentalities, such as the Law Society, have no business imposing values on individuals, much less demanding that individuals promote values. The Law Society’s policy in this matter is no less totalitarian than the arbitrator’s letter denounced by a majority of the Supreme Court in National Bank of Canada v Retail Clerks Int’l Union, [1984] 1 SCR 269.

I have elaborated these views in a series of blog posts, listed below, which I invite the Law Society to read:

Reasons for My Objection to the Statement of Principles Requirement

I consider myself a conscientious objector to the Statement of Principles requirement, and will not comply with it in the future. As noted above, I have a longstanding interest in freedom of conscience, and have displayed a consistent and public commitment to the rights and freedoms, especially those having to do with belief and expression of belief, of individuals and groups whose religious, moral, or political opinions I do not share. I claim the same freedom for myself.

I regard the Statement of Principles requirement as a violation of my freedom of conscience, freedom of opinion, and freedom of expression. The requirement states that I must promote specific values: equality, diversity, and inclusion. I believe that promoting values requires me to hold them. Otherwise, this promotion would be insincere; indeed, it would be a lie. And it is my sincerely held belief that, as a free individual, I must only hold those values that I freely choose for myself, and must not embrace those values imposed by an authority exercising coercive powers conferred by the state — i.e. the Law Society.

My fundamental belief that a free individual must choose his or her own values, think for him- or herself, and reject the authorities’ views of what he or she must believe in, which animates my scholarship and blogging on freedom of conscience and compels my refusal to comply with the Statement of Principles requirement is a product, in part, of family upbringing, and in part of my broader philosophical views.

As to the former, I was born in what was still the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and my parents took pride in ensuring that my brother and I grew up speaking Russian at home and aware of Russian history after our move to Canada. Part of my parents’ endeavours — indeed a very substantial part — involved exposing us to the stories of Soviet dissidents, people who, in various ways, stood up to a brutally repressive regime for their right to believe and to say their own, rather than the regime’s truth. The circumstances of a free and democratic society such as Canada are hardly comparable to those of the Soviet Union, but the moral imperative to live the truth as one sees it is no less pressing in this more benign setting.

As to the latter, I have been heavily influenced by Lord Acton’s liberalism, and, in particular, his admiration for “[t]he true apostles of toleration” — “not those who sought protection for their own beliefs, or who had none to protect; but men to whom, irrespective of their cause, it was a political, a moral, and a theological dogma, a question of conscience involving both religion and policy”. Hence my advocacy for the freedom of conscience and expression of those with whom I disagree; but one can still, I trust, be a defender of toleration while claiming its benefits for oneself. Lord Acton summarized the role of freedom of conscience in modern history thus:

With the decline of coercion the claim of Conscience rose, and the ground abandoned by the inquisitor was gained by the individual. There was less reason then for men to be cast of the same type; there was a more vigorous growth of independent character, and a conscious control over its formation. The knowledge of good and evil was not an exclusive and sublime prerogative assigned to states, or nations, or majorities.

It is my most deeply and conscientiously held belief that I must defend “the ground gained by the individual”, and the individual’s prerogative to maintain his or her independent character. I must resist if I can, and certainly lend no support to the attempts of “states, or nations, or majorities” — including a majority of the Benchers of the Law Society — to claim for themselves the “sublime prerogative” of knowing good and evil, and cast those subject to their jurisdiction all of the same type.

In addition to this overall outlook, I believe that my professional position as a scholar means that I must resist any attempt to make me adhere to or promote specific values chosen by an external authority. Academic freedom — which I regard not only as an entitlement but also as a responsibility — is a right, and arguably a duty, to pursue truth, however uncomfortable or unpleasant it might be to authorities and others. This pursuit, in my opinion, is incompatible with an undertaking to promote specific values. If my research leads me to conclusions that I or others regard as incompatible with or even opposed to a given value, so much the worse for the value in question.

I would add that, at a high level of generality, I find the values to which the Statement of Principles requirement refers attractive. However, my understanding of these general values is quite different from that which animates the Statement of Principles requirement. I believe in equality before the law, and reject the value of an equality of outcomes. I believe that diversity is primarily desirable if it embraces a plurality of views and perspectives on human flourishing, and not only of demographic backgrounds. Similarly, I believe that inclusion must extend to those who think, and not only those who look, unlike the majority. As a result, expressing support for these values, at the command of the Law Society, would risk communicating adherence to beliefs that I do not hold, and would thus force me to express statements I would not otherwise express.

Concluding observations

As explained above, I refuse to comply with the Statement of Principles requirement. I regard it as incompatible with my rights and duties as a free person, my professional responsibilities as a scholar, and, above all, my conscience.

If the requirement that I hold and promote values chosen by the Law Society is not repealed or invalidated, I will cease being a member of the legal profession in Ontario. This is not an outcome I desire — I would not have paid substantial fees for years for the privilege of this membership which is not necessary for my academic position and from which I derive no financial gain if I did not value the connection with the profession. However, I simply cannot remain a member of the legal profession in Ontario if to do so would violate some of my most deeply held conscientious beliefs.

We’ll see what happens with this. In any case, I am very grateful to Professor Alford and Mr. Klippenstein, as well as Asher Honickman who is litigating the case, and the CCF for fighting the good fight. And don’t forget that, in parallel, there is another front on which this fight can be fought ― the upcoming election for benchers of the Law Society. Vote, and throw the bums who imposed the “statement of principles” requirement out!

At the Executive’s Pleasure

When Parliament delegates power to agencies, it does so for any number of reasons. At least in theory, Parliament could delegate to a tribunal because it genuinely believes that some particular problem requires expert treatment. Parliament could also delegate as part of a “make or buy” decision, in a Coasian sense: the costs of crafting legislation may be prohibitive, and it may make more sense for Parliament to set out the broad strokes and let the agency fill in the blanks. Or, sometimes problems require solving by an independent body. Tribunals, for example, could play an important role in this regard. For example, determining whether a government action is contrary to human rights law is likely best determined by an impartial adjudicator. In such cases, so the story goes, a so-called “flexible” tribunal is best suited to deal efficiently with these sorts of problems.

But the promise of true independence is not often (and perhaps never) realized, because its existence is determined by the legislature and the executive. This should make us question whether the model of administrative justice we currently employ is even working.

The Ontario Human Rights Tribunal is finding this out the hard way. Recently, it came to light that the tribunal is experiencing a shortage of adjudicators, causing mass delays. The shortage is due, apparently, to the Attorney General’s refusal (or failure) to fill vacancies. The Ministry of the Attorney General oversees the province’s tribunals, including the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal. Lawyers and observers have pointed out the effect that the Attorney General’s delay in appointing adjudicators has on procedural fairness rights, and the general efficiency of the administrative justice system. Some people may view this state of affairs as untenable and inappropriate state of affairs, inconsistent with the spirit of administrative justice. But, to my mind, it is predictable.

Why should we expect this? The Tribunal is a recipient of delegated power, under the Ontario Human Rights Code. But like many legislative delegations, power is also concurrently delegated to the executive. As the Supreme Court said in Ocean Port at para 24, this means that tribunals span the constitutional divide between executive and judicial powers, but are primarily invested with these powers by legislative delegation. They are “created precisely for the purpose of implementing government policy.” There is no constitutional principle requiring structural independence, and it need not matter whether the tribunal is adjudicative or regulatory in character.

The Human Rights Tribunal is no exception from the Supreme Court’s comments in Ocean Port. In this case, the legislation specifies the Governor-in-Council has power to make appointments (s.32(2)). The language presupposes that there “shall” be “members” of the Human Rights Tribunal, but how many is left unsaid, presumably up to executive discretion. Otherwise, the only legislative specification on appointments is that appointments must be made according to a particular process (s.32(3)). Other than that, how much members of the tribunal shall be paid (s.32(4)) and their terms of office (s.32(5)) are matters for Cabinet. Cabinet has a wide degree of discretion to shape the efficiency and responsiveness of the administrative process in the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal, supposedly an independent agency, perhaps the “Crown jewel” of administrative law.

The fact that the legislature—at least arguably—even permits this should make us question the actual degree of independence in the administrative state. In fact, recalcitrance in conducting appointments is just one of the many ways that the executive can undermine the project of administrative justice. It is also perfectly legitimate, should the legislation permit it, for a Cabinet, after an election, to fire all the members of a labour board and to replace those members with persons that it sees fit. And this is just on the topic of appointments. Ron Ellis, in his book Unjust By Design (ably summarized by Professor Daly here) goes into detail about the ways in which executive actors can undermine tribunal independence, in a way that undermines the project of administrative justice. Renewal of tribunal members is one way that the executive can do so, but one can also imagine considerations such as the power of the purse and general administrative reorganization as ways in which the executive can subtly (and not so subtly) control the success and efficiency of the administrative state.

This might all sound bad, but I for one, think that independence is an overrated virtue, and should be calibrated to the strength of the case for independence. There is clearly a case for the Bank of Canada to be independent. But one can imagine closer cases. After all, we live in a system of responsible government and political accountability, and creating islands of power without adequate oversight should be concerning. That said, there is clearly a need for the broader category of “independent agencies” in modern administrative decision-making.

So, how do we balance accountability with independence? I think we need to go to the source: Parliament and the legislatures. One way is to insist that Parliament, if it is to empower the executive with power over these tribunals, legislate more specifically. In the Human Rights Tribunal example, perhaps Parliament could specify a minimum number of adjudicators that must exist at a given time. Or it could delegate the power to the Cabinet to do so, but make it a mandatory requirement. More specificity in delegation, while increasing the costs of legislating, also helps to guide executive action and provide constraints on executive recalcitrance.

The Law Reform Commission, in 1985, recommended that the independent agency be decoupled from Cabinet, and instead be made to report directly to Parliament to remove the spectre of executive interference. This might seem desirable, but I fear it prizes independence over accountability. Having someone able to answer, on a day-to-day basis, for the tribunal activities (and to be accountable in a broader sense for the tribunal’s mandate) is an important accountability mechanism in and of itself. It may make more sense for us to expect Parliament to adequately debate and decide on the limits of executive action in relation to tribunals, and then expect responsible ministers to be accountable for whatever they do in relation to the tribunals.

Overall, there is a risk that tribunals merely exist at the executive’s pleasure. But legislatures themselves have made this choice. It is for them to solve.