FavoriteLoadingSave to briefcase | Rating: | By (2012)

  • PrintEmail Link
  • Viewed 1,587 times | Saved to 301 briefcases
Babcock v Canada (Attorney General), [2002] 3 SCR 3

Facts:

Government made a contract to pay the lawyers in Toronto more then other lawyers. Vancouver lawyers brought a claim saying the government breached their contracts of employment and fiduciary duty. Was an issue with documents allowed in court.

Ratio:

Unwritten constitutional principles (UCPs) must be balanced with Parliamentary supremacy, and while they are capable of limiting governments in some cases, they cant do so in all cases.
**Parliamentary supremacy wins over UCPS

Analysis:

UCPs are capable of limiting government actions, they do not in this case. UCPs must be balanced against the principle of Parliamentary sovereignty (supremacy). The rule of law does not preclude a special law with a special result dealing with classes of documents, which have been treated differently then private documents.

UCPs v Parliamentary Supremacy
**Parliamentary supremacy wins – remember Imperial Tobacco
It is well within the power of the legislature to enact laws, even laws which some would consider draconian, as long as it does not fundamentally alter or interfere with the relationship between the courts and other braches of the government

Holding:

Documents allowed to be entered

Comments:

Narrowed the UCPs from secession


Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to participate.

This document is a general discussion of certain legal and related issues and must not be relied upon as legal advice. This document may not have been written or reviewed by a legal practitioner. For more information, please see the website Terms of Service.