Printer Friendly

Ancillary issues with Oakes: the development of the Waterfield test and the problem of fundamental constitutional theory.

This article reviews the development of the ancillary powers test in the Canadian criminal law context. The test bears striking Similarities to the analytical framework postulated by the Supreme Court of Canada in the famous R v Oakes case. The ancillary powers test has British roots and its insertion into Canadian law has proven troubling for some members of the Court. This article addresses these concerns by demonstrating that, despite the analytical similarities of the two tests (the ancillary powers test and Oakes), the ancillary powers test creates unique problems in constitutional theory that raise serious issues about its legitimacy and appropriateness. This article also considers some of the socio legal implications of the proliferation of the ancillary powers test. Finally, it concludes by agreeing with the dissenters at the Supreme Court of Canada who have argued that future cases should move away from using the test.

Dans cet article, on examine l'evolution du critere des pouvoirs accessoires dans le contexte du droit criminel canadien. Ce critere presente de frappantes similitudes avec le cadre analytique etabli par la Cour supreme du Canada dans le celebre arret R c Oakes. Le critere des pouvoirs accessoires a des origines bri tanniques et son integration au droit canadien a pose quelques difficultes a certains membres de la Cour. L'article aborde ces questions en faisant la demonstration que, malgre les similitudes d'ordre analytique entre les deux criteres (critere des pouvoirs accessoires et celui etabli dans Oakes), le critere des pouvoirs accessoires entraine, pour la theorie constitutinnnelle, des problemes qui remettent en cause sa legitimite et son bien-fonde. Cet article examine en outre les repercussions sociojuridiques de la proliferation du critere des pouvoirs accessoires. Il conclut son analyse en abondant dans le sens des juges dissidents a la Cour supreme du Canada, soit qu'il vaudrait mieux a l'avenir eviter de recourir a ce critere.
Table of Contents



The section 1 test (the Oakes test), first delineated by Chief Justice Dickson in R v Oakes, (1) utilizes a type of harm test that excuses governmental infringements of protected civil rights when the quantum of societal harm to be remediated is high enough and if certain legal contexts are met. This calculus is used to examine whether governmental infringement of protected constitutional rights is a justifiable encroachment in Canadian society. This paper will demonstrate that this same calculus has been duplicated in the ancillary powers approach to police powers (also known as the Waterfield test). (2) The ancillary powers test is an innovation of the Supreme Court of Canada (the Supreme Court or the Court) that allows for the justification of new police powers based on a nexus between current police conduct and common law police duties. This paper will demonstrate that the test has a justificatory component that borrows heavily from the Oakes calculus.

The Oakes approach has become the format by which otherwise inexcusable state conduct is countenanced, and its elasticity has allowed profound changes in criminal procedure law in the last ten years. This paper will explore whether the justificatory reasoning embedded in Oakes is a legitimate analytic to be imported into a legal test that creates new police powers (the ancillary powers test).

If one considers the legacy of Oakes, beyond its reach as a balancing test in judicial review of legislative impingement of guaranteed rights, and considers its impact on other criminal law balancing tests, such as the ancillary powers test, the impact of Oakes might be read more equivocally. On the one hand, Oakes has been a mainstay of virtually all cases that have resulted in hard fought Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (3) victories. However, in the ancillary powers context one could argue its legacy is a security calculus that has been embraced by the Supreme Court and that raises questions about the legitimacy of judicial action. Oakes was, of course, a judicial creation that grew from the wording of section 1 of the Charter, and its use has become prolific-almost routine-in the Charter era. (4) This paper queries whether the duplication of Oakes-style reasoning in criminal procedure law through ancillary powers may cross the line from interpretive tool into improper legislative impetus by an adjudicating body (for example, one could question the ability of a court, rather than Parliament, to countenance ad hoc police powers).

This paper is divided into three parts. In part II, it explores the development of the ancillary powers test in Canada and traces it through to its current state in Canadian law. In part III, it will attempt to demonstrate how the test, as it was crafted by the Court, came to borrow some pivotal elements from the Oakes analysis. Lastly, in part IV, it will demonstrate some analytical pitfalls in the use of the ancillary powers analysis that render its use more problematic than the Oakes test and raise serious questions about the legitimacy of ancillary powers as a judicial tool.


The Waterfield test developed from an English Court of Appeal case of the same name in 1963. (5) The test has come to be understood as a means by which a court places limits on police authority to interfere with the liberty or property of individuals. The case dealt with very limited contextual circumstances. The police were investigating a dangerous driving incident in which a car had crashed into a wall. The car, though owned by Eli Waterfield, had been purportedly operated by a friend of his, Geoffrey Lynn. The police could not make arrests without clarifying information as to the actual driver.

After the crash, Lynn was occupying the automobile while the car was parked, and two officers approached him with intent to search the car. Waterfield arrived at the scene, instructed the police that they could not impound the car and asked Lynn to drive away. While the officers blocked Lynn, he drove forward at Waterfield's behest, forcing an officer to move out of the way. This action resulted in assault charges against Waterfield and Lynn. In particular, it raised the issue of whether the two had assaulted an officer in the execution of his duties.

The test that the Court of Appeal created was very limited in scope. It was intended to determine whether the assaults occurred in the context of an officer carrying out a common law police power that in some way connected to common law duties. The test developed was not intended to create ad hoc police power outside of this context.

In his oral decision, Justice Ashworth (speaking for Chief Justice Lord Parker and Justice Hinchcliffe) quashed the conviction for assault. In doing so, Justice Ashworth outlined what would become known as the Waterfield test in Canada:
 [I]t would be difficult, and in the present case it is unnecessary,
 to reduce within specific limits the general terms in which the
 duties of police constables have been expressed. In most cases it
 is probably more convenient to consider what the police constable
 was actually doing and in particular whether such conduct was prima
 facie an unlawful interference with a person's liberty or property.
 If so, it is then relevant to consider whether (a) such conduct
 falls within the general scope of any duty imposed by statute or
 recognised at common law and (b) whether such conduct, albeit
 within the general scope of such a duty, involved an unjustifiable
 use of powers associated with the duty. Thus, while it is no doubt
 right to say in general terms that police constables have a duty to
 prevent crime and a duty, when crime is committed, to bring the
 offender to justice, it is also clear from the decided cases that
 when the execution of these general duties involves interference
 with the person or property of a private person, the powers of
 constables are not unlimited. (6)

Thus, the Court of Appeal was not using the test as a means of developing new police powers. Rather, it was using the test as a means of determining whether an assault occurred in the context of police acting in a professional manner (i.e. within the scope of the office) in order to substantiate an assault against an officer in the course of executing his duties. The Court of Appeal decided that since "neither of the appellants had been charged or was under arrest ... the two police constables were not acting in the due execution of their duty at common law when they detained the car." (7) On this reasoning, the conviction for assault was quashed.

Prior to the Charter, the Waterfield test gained some traction in Canadian jurisprudence. For example, in Knowlton v R, (8) the Supreme Court had to consider a similar problem as in the British case--whether Knowlton unlawfully obstructed a peace officer in the execution of his duty. The police had cordoned off an area to the entrance of a hotel where the Premier of the USSR was visiting. Knowlton indicated to two constables that he wished to proceed past the cordoned off area to take pictures of the dignitary. When informed by the constables that such action would result in an arrest, Knowlton refused to take notice and tried to push past the constables. He was then arrested.

Chief Justice Fauteux repeated the Waterfield test for the Court:
 The police having interfered with the liberty of the appellant, or
 more precisely, with his right to circulate freely on a public
 street, the questions to be determined are, as formulated by the
 Court of Criminal Appeals in Regina v. Waterfield ...

 (i) whether such conduct of the police falls within the general
 scope of any duty imposed by statute or recognized at common law
 and (ii) whether such conduct, albeit within the general scope of
 such a duty, involved an unjustifiable use of powers associated
 with the duty. (9)

The Court found that the police were "duty bound" to take "reasonable steps" to impede public access and that without extenuating reasons (to be provided by Knowlton), the officers were justified in impeding his access. (10) Thus, the officers were acting in execution of their duties and Knowlton had committed the offence, (11) Following this case, the scope of the Waterfield test remained somewhat limited and constrained until 11 years later, when the Supreme Court would use the Waterfield test in a manner that justified police power in the absence of a charge against an accused of impeding an officer's execution of his or her duties. In other words, the Court used the test to produce new police powers as opposed to as an element of substantiating the actus reus of a criminal offence.

Such was the case in Dedman v R. (12) The Court in Dedman allowed the Waterfield test to be used as a mechanism for police power creation. The appellant had complied with the request of a police officer to bring his vehicle to a halt as part of a checkstop program. The officer checked the license of the accused and noted the smell of alcohol emanating from the accused's breath, and thus demanded a breath sample. The appellant refused and was charged with failing to comply without reasonable excuse. The legitimacy of the checkstop was impugned, as there was no legislative or common law impetus for the stop. The Court cited Waterfield and noted that in determining the lawfulness of the stop one would need to consider: a) whether the police were engaging in a primafacie interference with the accused's liberty or property; b) if so, whether the conduct falls within the general scope of the duty imposed by statute or developed by common law; and if both conditions are met, c) whether the conduct of the officer involved an unjustifiable use of powers associated with the duty. (13)

The Court found that the ability to stop the accused in this case was a justifiable police power. The Court admitted that an interference with the liberty or property of an accused had occurred, but it held that the detention fell within the scope of common law duties of police officers--most notably the control of traffic linked to the common law duties of crime prevention and protection of life. (14) The Court was cautious to note that an officer's conduct in such situations must be "reasonable" and must interfere with liberty as little as possible; however, the determination depends on the public purpose served by the interference as well as the nature of the liberty inquestion. (15) Since the context here was regulatory, the activity interfered with was licensed, occurred for a short time and was merely an inconvenience, and since the public purpose of deterrence in the context of road safety was important and also well publicized, the Court found that the police conduct was justifiable. (16)

Dedman thus represented an important benchmark in the development of the Watesfield test. First, it was a case that used the three-pronged test of Waterfield for the creation of ad hoc police powers. Second, it was a case that occurred at the threshold of the Charter era. (17) Though Dedman resulted in the creation of police common law power in the checkstop context, it did not answer cogently what constitutional effect such powers would have. The precise answer to this question would not be realized for dozens of years, but the promulgation of the Waterfield test into the arsenal of judicial review and its use in subsequent to create police powers was significant in the nascent jurisprudence.

In R v Godoy, (18) the Supreme Court once again utilized the Waterfield test as a means of police powers creation. The case involved the response of two police officers to a 911 emergency dispatch call from the apartment of the accused. The call to 911 was disconnected. Four officers reported to the residence and they knocked on the door. The accused opened the door part-way and said that there was no problem. On further questioning about the context, the accused attempted to close the door, however, an officer prevented this from occurring, and the officers gained entry into the house. Once inside, an officer heard crying sounds and the officers found the accused's spouse, who had sustained facial injuries, lying curled in the bedroom. The officers arrested the accused for assault.

The Court admitted that the actions of the police interfered with the liberty and property of the accused. The Court was thus concerned with whether the conduct of the officers was connected to a common law duty, and whether the conduct was an unjustifiable use of the powers stemming from that duty. (19) It was obvious to the Court that the police response was connected to the common law powers of protection of life of the citizenry and investigation of crime. (20) Thus, the Court was mostly concerned with whether the intrusion was justifiable. (21) Given the context (i.e. that the police were responding to a 911 hang up), the Court found that the police were justified in attempting to ascertain the reason for the call, so long as they acted proportionately. (22)

In R v Mann, (23) the Court further expanded the Waterfield test to create a power of investigative detention and correlative search powers. Two police officers were responding to a break and enter call when, in the vicinity of the event, they saw a person who matched the description of the suspect (Mann). Mann complied with an officer's request for a pat-down search for weapons, and the officer felt a soft object in Mann's pocket. The officer reached into the pocket and found a baggie of marijuana. Other baggies were also found, and the police arrested Mann for possession for the purposes of trafficking.

The Court held that the common law had evolved such that Waterfield allowed for investigative detention on reasonable grounds. (24) The reasonableness of these grounds would be based on the objective totality of the circumstances, including the connection between the detention and recent or ongoing criminal activity. (25) This reasonableness test would purportedly meet the Waterfield prong that asks for a connection between police officer conduct and a common law duty, since presumably an investigative detention would connect with crime investigation duties. However, the Court would still need to consider the justifiability of police officer conduct in order to meet the final prong of Waterfield. (26) The majority found that there were reasonable grounds to detain Mann given the description of the suspect and geographic proximity to the crime scene. (27) These grounds also necessitated a correlative pat-down power to ensure officer safety. (28)

The Court held that this search power should not extend beyond what is justifiable to ensure officer safety. In particular, a search of pockets on the touch of soft objects would not be a justifiable use of police powers. However, Mann does seem to make clear that the combination of reasonable grounds requirements and the Waterfield justification analysis would allow for constitutional investigative detentions under section 9 of the Charter (the right to be free from arbitrary detention), so long as the detention was justifiable under the Waterfield calculus. Further, the new common law power would come equipped with a new constitutionally valid power of protective search (presumably this is constitutionally allowable under the section 8 Charter guarantee of protection from unreasonable search and seizure) so long as the test of justifiability was met. Thus, the case provided a constitutionalization of the Waterfield test. That is, Mann, provided tacit evidence that the ancillary powers test could not only create ad hoc police powers, but could provide a test of justification that would pass constitutional muster (perhaps in much the same way as Oakes does for legislation).

In R v Orbanski; R v Elias, (29) the majority used the Waterfield test as agap-filling tool in the context of a section 10(b) right to counsel Charter violation. Here, officers had stopped a vehicle driven by Orbanski that ran a stop sign. Elias was pulled over at a random roadside stop. In both cases officers detected the odour of alcohol and asked if the accuseds had been drinking. Orbanski failed a roadside sobriety test, and Elias failed an approved screening device test. The Crown conceded that while both had been detained, neither was informed of their right to counsel until after they were arrested. They both failed their breath sample tests and were charged with impaired driving. The majority found that the right to counsel was violated in both instances when Orbanski and Elias were not informed of this right upon detention. The majority found that the ability to detain and inquire roadside were powers that were necessary and justified using the ancillary powers test because they connected to provisions of the relevant highway traffic act and the criminal impairment driving prohibitions. (30)

Yet, the Court found that this ancillary power was an infringement of the right to counsel and subjected the newly created power to a section 1 Oakes analysis. (31) Since the need to protect the public from the carnage of impaired driving was compelling, this infringement was considered to be limited and justifiable. (32) It is worth asking why the majority resorted to the Oakes analysis in this context to inquire as to whether the ancillary power met constitutional muster as opposed to turning to Mann, where the test itself conveyed constitutional validity. The Court did little to clarify this matter, but it seems germane that in this case the Court connected the ancillary power to legislation, whereas in Mann the ancillary power was footed in common law. Perhaps the legislative context was one in which the majority felt more secure in applying Oakes rather than a Mann-style investigative detention test. (33)

The Court in R v Clayton further clarified the use of Waterfield in the constitutional development of investigative detention. (34) In Clayton, police responded to a dispatch call regarding four "black guys" displaying guns in the parking lot of an exotic nightclub. Four vehicles were identified. The police responded within four minutes of the call and set up a roadblock at the back of the club, where they detained and ultimately arrested suspects who were in the car that was stopped.

Here again, the majority found that while the liberty and property of the accuseds was interfered with, the officers were clearly acting in a manner that linked with their common law crime investigation and prevention duties. (35) The majority noted that the justifiability of the detention (in this case the roadblock) would depend on the nature of the situation, the seriousness of the offence, the information known to police about the suspect and crimes, the reasonable responsiveness of the police given the extent of the risk and prudent limitations on police intrusion. (36) Further, the majority made clear that whether the stop was justifiable would depend on the temporal, geographic and logistical responsiveness of the police. (37) The majority posited that the Waterfield test, in this context, was both a gap-filling test for the de facto creation of police powers as well as a litmus test for determining whether a stop was arbitrary under section 9 of the Charter. (38) The majority found that the police conduct was justifiable, given the short time period, the geographic proximity of the response and the nature of the alleged crime (involving guns).

More controversially, the constitutional implications of Waterfield were explored by the Court more fully in the decisions of R v Kang-Brown (39) and R v AM (40) Both cases allowed for the possibility of lawful, warrantless sniffer dog searches, yet both cases found that the police's actions had not passed constitutional muster. The Court made these determinations through uneasy coalitions of oblique majorities on different issues (the detailed description of which, for the sake of brevity, I will defer for another paper). Kang-Brown involved the use of a warrantless sniffer dog search in a bus depot. R v AM involved the warrantless use of sniffer dog backpack searches in a school gymnasium. In both cases, coalitions of judges in the majority found that warrantless sniffer dog searches could occur if areasonable suspicion of criminal activity had crystallized. The basis for this new standard was the gap-filling function of Waterfield. (41)

Chief Justice McLachlin and Justice Binnie noted that such searches, while an infringement of liberty, clearly align with the common law crime investigation duties of police. (42) Sniffer dog searches could be justifiable because the searches are of special assistance and precision when police are properly in place to investigate crimes. (43) Justices Deschamps and Rothstein noted that the justifiability of the searches could be made out where there was an important public purpose at play, such as curbing the illicit drug trade. In such circumstances, well-trained and accurate sniff searches would be minimally intrusive given the standard of reasonable suspicion. (44) Thus, sniffer dog searches could be justifiable and, more importantly, this would appropriately balance the constitutional privacy interest of an accused with the societal interest in curbing the drug trade. (45) A majority in both cases did not find that officers met the constitutional standard; however, a differently constituted majority (consisting of McLachlin CJ and Binnie, Deschamps, Rothstein and Bastarache JJ) found sniffer dog searches could be prospectively allowable when reasonable suspicion combined with circumstances that passed the Waterfield justification requirement.

Therefore, in the evolution of the Waterfield test we see the Supreme Court's recent willingness to use the test as a means of creating police powers. We also see an increasing tendency by the Court to view Waterfield as a means to constitutionally inoculate a police power; as a quasi-Oakes test of justification. This constitutional function of the Waterfield test has not been without anxiety for some members of the Court. The next section will briefly explore further the connection between Waterfield and Oakes and describe some of the tensions raised by dissenters in the Court who seem to object to the proliferation of Waterfield as a constitutional standard of sorts.


This section will briefly explore some of the similarities between the Oakes test and the Waterfield test. The author does not intend to argue that one informs the other through law, but rather that through the justification stage in both analyses, courts engage in similar balancing tests. The contention is that the justification logic of Waterfield has been used increasingly in the Charter era, and that many of the same analytical tools are used in both tests. These similarities help to bring into focus critiques about justification analyses and allow us to inquire into the legitimacy of Waterfield as a tool of police power creation and justification. These critiques are discussed in part IV below. This is not to suggest that Waterfield replaces Oakes, or even that it should. The aim is rather to direct the reader's attention to the similar moves made in both tests. While there has been little, if any, academic debate on this topic, the Justices in Clayton (discussed above, and elaborated upon below) clearly flirted with these tensions. This section will conclude by summarizing some of the judicial unease that has plagued the use of the Waterfield test in recent years.

The educated reader has likely encountered the Oakes formula many times. The author does not wish to belabour the point. Oakes was, of course, Chief Justice Dickson's formulation of how to use section 1 of the Charter in situations where Charter rights of an accused have been infringed. In such cases, the government has the burden of demonstrating justifiable infringement by government action (typically legislation). The broad analysis consists of a two-pronged approach, wherein the second prong contains three inquiries. The first prong asks the government to demonstrate that the purpose of the legislation is sufficiently pressing and substantial to justify limiting the rights of an accused. The second prong explores the proportionality of the legislation and inquires whether there is a rational connection between the effects of the legislation and its objective (rational connection), whether the legislation impairs the rights of an accused as little as is reasonably possible (minimal impairment) and whether there is a proportionality between the effects of the law and the objective, taking into account whether the importance of the objective and its salutary effects outweigh the deleterious effects of the law (costs versus benefits). (46)

Certainly we see echoes of the Oaksian requirements of a pressing and substantial objective of the legislation in the Waterfield test. The Waterfield test asks the court to identify whether the police power in question relates to a valid common law power--typically crime investigation and control, securing order and keeping the peace. This inquiry asks the decision maker to find something in the analysis that equates the police conduct with a laudable purpose. Often, in the ancillary powers cases judges note the importance of the police power in the case at hand. For instance, in Kang-Brown Justices Deschamps and Rothstein note the importance of the crime control function in sniffer dog searches and the correlated need to curb the illicit drug trade. (47) In Clayton, the majority of the Court also buttresses its analysis with the importance of the police objective in containing the physical threat from a serious firearm offence. (48) Similar reasoning is also laid out in Godoy when the Court discusses the importance of police response in potentially life-threatening situations. (49) This purpose alone is not enough though; the ancillary powers inquiry (like Oakes) asks us to then inquire whether the use of power is justified, and it is this final step of Waterfield that echoes the second prong of Oakes.

Like the second prong of Oakes, the Waterfield test is concerned with whether the state power (in this case, police power) is a well-tailored response. Waterfield analyses frequently look for rational connections between the actions of the police and the achievement of the common law police objective. In the sniffer dog case of Kang-Brown for example, Chief Justice McLachlin and Justice Birmie describe the reasonable response of sniffer dog use in crime investigation, noting that their accuracy makes it more likely that the police objective will be achieved. (50) This is an observation echoed by Justices Deschamps and Rothstein as well. (51) Often, the rational connection analysis is wielded by describing the responsiveness of the police (52) and noting that the conduct of police has been meted out on a reasonable basis. (53) In Clayton, this reasonableness assessment depended on the geographic, temporal and logistical response of the police to the dispatch call (in this case the police action occurred within minutes of the call, close to the scene of the alleged crime and was informed by the description of the events and suspects). (54)

We also see echoes of minimal impairment in the Court's Waterfield approach. Here, we see the concerns of some Justices with the intrusiveness of the power wielded. For example, in Kang-Brown Justices Deschamps and Rothstein describe that the sniffer dog search is relatively non-invasive and typically consists of a dog sitting down to indicate positive detection of drugs. (55) The minimal intrusion doctrine sometimes operates on a prospective basis. In Godoy, the Court was aware of the home entry power they had created. The Justices noted that in order to minimally impair the rights of the accused, the home search power in response to a 911 call should not extend further than locating the caller, determining why the call occurred and assisting as appropriate the search should not be a fishing expedition. (56) The nature of the accused's conduct certainly appears to mediate how minimally intrusive an officer ought be in acting. For example, in Dedman, the fact that the police stop occurred in the context of driving a licensed and regulated activity suggested that the police would be given more leniency in executing common law powers. (57)

Last, the analogy with Oakes is made complete when the Justices utilizing Waterfield attempt to assess justification in the totality of the circumstances an analysis that resembles the costs and benefits final stage of a section 1 analysis. This analytical tool is usually briefly rendered and often seems to merely summarize the previous findings of the Court. As one illustration, the Court in Godoy notes that the use of a home search power in response to 911 calls is justified because of the potential threat to life and that privacy rights, while normally protected, must yield to the overarching police objective of protecting life. (58) In general, courts using Watesfield are engaging in cost benefit analyses when they speak of the totality or constellation of the circumstances that justify the police power(s) at issue. (59)

This brief discussion illustrates that there is an affinity in the approaches to reasoning that inform both the Oakes and Waterfield tests. The pointed similarities suggest a conscious decision by the judiciary to apply similar principles. Yet certain dissenting decisions in the cases we have discussed portray a discomfort with rising Waterfield as a tool for justification of police power. Indeed, in Dedman, Chief Justice Dickson expressed his concerns in using Waterfield in the Canadian context:
 [T]he majority of the Court departs firm ground for a slippery
 slope when they authorize an otherwise unlawful interference with
 individual liberty by the police, solely on the basis that it is
 reasonably necessary to carry out general police duties. The
 objection to a random stop made without any grounds for suspicion
 or belief that the particular driver has committed or is committing
 an offence goes far beyond the unpleasant psychological effects
 produced for the innocent driver. Even if these would tend to be
 minimized by the well publicized nature of the ... program, the
 erosion of individual liberty with its ultimately detrimental
 effect on the freedom of all members of society would remain. (60)

The concerns of the judiciary continued to mount even as the Court began to use the Waterfield test more frequently. In Orbanski, Justices LeBel and Fish note that "[t]he adoption of a rule limiting Charter rights on the basis of what amounts to a utilitarian argument in favour of meeting the needs of police" investigations through the development of common law police powers would tend to give a potentially uncontrollable scope to the doctrine developed in the Waterfield--Dedman line of cases...." (61)

Justices LeBel and Fish go on to note that the doctrine may give too much power to the crime control function of police, enabling a judicial ethic that suggests that "what the police need, the police get, by judicial fiat if all else fails or if the legislature finds the adoption of legislation to be unnecessary or unwarranted." (62) Justice Binnie in Clayton goes so far as to suggest that the Waterfield balancing test is the wrong tool to use in Charter cases because "the 'reasonably necessary' test is not a Charter test, and is not an adequate substitute for proper Charter scrutiny. Accordingly, while I agree with Abella J that the appeal must be allowed, I reach that conclusion by a different route." (63)

Justices Binnie, Fish and LeBel were concerned that the Waterfield analysis might replace an Oakes analysis that was designed for Charter scrutiny and might result in a widening of the net for permissible police powers. They write that "[c]onflating in a Waterfield-type analysis the consideration of the individual's [sections] 8 and 9 rights and society's [section] 1 interests can only add to the problematic elasticity of common law police powers, and sidestep the real policy debate." (64)

In Kang-Brown, the judicial discord over the use of Waterfield reached its apex. Justices LeBel, Fish, Abella and Charron suggest that the use of the test impinges on the traditions of the common law as protective of civil liberties. They write: "The common law has long been viewed as a law of liberty." (65) The use of Waterfield to expand police powers and subsequently constitutionalize them problematizes the "proper function of the courts as guardians of the Constitution." (66)

More recently the Court has continued this debate as to the validity of Waterfield as a Charter era test in obiter while weighing the utility of reasonableness as a standard of police discretion. In R v Sinclair, (67) Justices LeBel and Fish, again, endorse the use of Oakes in the assessment of state conduct and question whether the Court's use of Waterfield runs counter to the liberty-enhancing ethic of common law. Here, they endorse the words of Justice Jackson of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal in R v Yeh: (68) "It also goes, almost without saying, that an expansion of police powers, by judicial decision alone, precludes any future Charter scrutiny of the increased power, and is inconsistent with the usual tenor of the evolution of the common law, which traditionally defends civil liberties and does not infringe them, without cogent evidence of the need to do so." (69)

As this section concludes, the author notes the inherent tension in the development of the jurisprudence. On the one hand, the Waterfield test, and its expansion in recent years, demonstrates considerable overlap with the analytical maneuvers of the Oakes test. On the other hand, some members of the judiciary are expressing a notable resistance to Waterfield, suggesting a return to Oakes in the constitutional assessment of common law police power cases. If the tests were substantially similar, why would some judges vehemently oppose the proliferation of Waterfield? The answers lie in constitutional theory, but have socio-legal implications beyond the self contained positivism of the law and the structure of the judiciary. The next section will explore some of these theoretical concerns to elucidate concerns that underpin the proliferation of Waterfield in the Charter era.


The Oakes test has itself been the subject of much theoretical critique. Some have claimed that it betrays an anti-legislative agenda. (70) These critics tend to view the use of Oakes by courts as something of an excuse to politically trump the will of Parliament. These critiques of the Supreme Court and its use of Oakes still persist in circles that tend to have right-wing political views. (71) However, most rigorous social science studies focusing on the Court have not demonstrated that the Court has routinely behaved in an anti-legislative fashion. (72) It is for this reason that most critiques of Oakes as an anti-legislative tool focus on the amount it is used to qualify legislation across different eras and times. (73)

This brief discussion of a well-mined critique of Oakes does, however, elucidate a key theoretical problem with Waterfield. Whether or not one agrees politically with the function of the Oakes test, at the least the test is a response to a legislative agenda. That is to say, Parliament acts, a right is infringed and a court determines whether that infringement is justified. In the context of the Waterfield test, it is precisely the absence of legislation that forces a court into action. In this legislative void, a court concocts a police power and then after its creation assesses the justification of that power vis-a-vis an accused's infringement of rights. For Oakes to apply it requires that a law be prescribed, whereas Waterfield operates in a legislative vacuum. This is an analytical incongruity to be sure, but it also provides a fundamental problem of liberal governance. Oakes occurs in the context of law--it analyzes a problem that occurs when a rule of law exists.

Yet, our Parliamentary democracy requires that we only obey rules that exist; to require otherwise would create problems of intelligibility for the citizen and create questions about arbitrary law enforcement discretion. (74) Under this model of law, the predominance of law supersedes wide discretion, and liberty maintains itself in a residuary. (75) This foundation of our system of governance requires that anything that is not expressly forbidden be permitted (the principle of legality). (76) Oakes, while it creates a technical problem of liberty, avoids the conundrum because it is founded on section 1 of the Charter, and thus one can argue that Parliament considered this judicial role, which may at times trouble the notion of liberty. Further, its use relies on the existence of a rule. Waterfield does not. It is a test not contemplated by Parliament and its function is countenanced in the absence of rules with the sole result of liberty infringement. Hence, Waterfield represents a direct assault on traditional understandings of the rule of law.

This problem of rule of law creates another concomitant ripple effect for the use of Waterfield. Section 1 of the Charter delegates a legislative function of balancing law (using Oakes) and that delegation has occurred expressly at the hands of Parliament. Waterfield does not derive from a similar legislative edict, and its use is not founded on legislative delegation. Hence, there is a much stronger case to make for the objection that Waterfield and its proliferation is a direct usurpation of the legislative role and creates a structural asymmetry between the traditional role of the legislative and judicial branches in Canada. (77)

These structural differences have also resulted in statistical anomalies. The question of whether Oakes has resulted in shifts of absolute wins or losses for the rights of accuseds remains statistically unanswered (or the answer remains contestable) (78), but this is not the case in the context of Waterfield. A review of the Charter era jurisprudence suggests that, with the exception of three cases, the use of the test more often than not favours the disposition that the state has sought. (79) Even in these cases of so-called losses for the Crown, new prospective police powers were created. This observation dovetails with the concerns of justices who argue that the use of Waterfield is a betrayal of the Court's tradition of viewing the common law as the law of liberty. (80) Beyond historic common law traditions though, this trend seems to problematize more recent conceptions of the Court as a guardian of the Constitution.

This guardianship comprises a commitment to the principle of legality to be sure. However, this guardianship also comprises a human rights era breed of constitutionalism. (81) This argument takes issue with traditional notions of the judiciary that see policy debate by the judiciary as anti-democratic. McLachlin J (as she was then) has described this as a post-second world war phenomenon that bloomed into a human dignity-based rights approach. (82) This newfound guardianship of the Constitution places courts as cautious defenders of justice, but ones who defend principles fundamental to the Constitution. These fundamental principles have been described as "thin" in the sense that they are "narrowly defined" values that are "core" to constitutional documents; nonetheless, such "thin" principles still give rise to significant debate as to their precise content. (83) For example, liberty is a core constitutional value protected in section 7 of the Charter, but its exact definition has undergone significant evolution since patriation. Nonetheless, there is little doubt that the courts are charged with defending the notion and protecting its constitutional core. The Waterfield test disrupts this constitutional guardianship because it asks a court to step aside from it stewardship of the core value and to provide for non-legislative incursions into this core. The proliferation of Waterfield can thus be read as a disruption of this guardianship role.

Other structural ripple effects continue to inure if we take the effects of Waterfield to their logical conclusion. One of the most articulate defences of Oakes analyses is that a section 1 analysis by a court is never final. The legitimacy of Oakes is buttressed not just by the notion that it is a delegated legislative function, but also by the fact that judiciary does not have the last word as to the validity of legislation. (84) Scholars often describe this as a lack of judicial finality since courts, which embark upon Oakes analyses, are merely engaging in a type of dialogue: "[T]he Charter decisions of the courts, whether right or wrong, rarely preclude a legislative sequel, and usually receive one. Collectively, we take comfort in the ability of legislative bodies to respond to those Charter decisions where the courts simply 'get it wrong'. (85)

Under these accounts of the use of Oakes, the Court is described as a partner in the legislative process charged with guarding core values, whose role produces justice and is cooperative as opposed to antagonistic. (86) Even if a court is viewed as antagonistically reversing Parliament or a legislature, it would be open to legislative bodies to re-legislate or to use the constitutional override provisions to establish legislative preeminence, (87) Hogg, Thornton and Wright explain that "[a]n important role of the rule of law is to protect minorities and civil liberties generally. That role would be jeopardized if the legislative or executive branch, which is responsible for enacting and implementing the laws, was also given final authority to interpret the scope of the constitutional restrictions on those responsibilities." (88)

This quotation summarizes the problem with the creation of police powers through Waterfield quite aptly. Unlike in Oakes analyses, the role of courts in Waterfield analyses is not dialogic. In bequeathing police power to the state a court not only routinely abandons its stewardship of the Constitution and eviscerates its relationship with the rule of law, it also assumes final legislative authority for the power. That is to say, a court's decision to create a common law power under Waterfield is not a dialogue with Parliament, but a monologue. It is a monologue in which the judiciary invents a common law power and then declares that power to be constitutional. As Justices LeBel and Fish wrote in Sinclair, "this kind of judicial intervention would pre-empt any serious Charter review of the limits, as the limits would arise out of initiatives of the courts themselves." (89)

The Court in Waterfield analyses is both the legislator of police powers and the adjudicator of the constitutional legitimacy of such powers. This not only disrupts the judicial dialogue metaphor, but also disrupts the courts' traditional role of enforcing a common law culture that views the rule of law as the law of liberty. The same judicial turn represents a movement away from human rights era constitutionalism, which purports to position these courts as guardians of the Constitution. Last, it creates a situation where an accused, due to problems of intelligibility and unknowable law enforcement discretion, is unaware of the powers that police hold over him or her until the subsequent judicial review, creating a type of retroactive judicial fiat of police powers. Justices LeBel and Fish explain that "[m]embers of [the] Court have, in recent years, repeatedly questioned the practice of expanding the scope of police powers by judicial fiat. The common thread linking these opinions is a concern that 'while Charter rights relating to the criminal justice system were developed by the common law, the common law would now be used to trump and restrict them.'" (90)

In short, the Waterfield test, despite its analytical affinity with Oakes, sounds every alarm bell of unsound judicial practice that has (debatably) been unsuccessfully lobbed at Oakes. Yet, in the context of Waterfield, the debatable critiques of Oakes have failed on every measurable scale. A fractious Supreme Court seems to have settled on allowing the use of the ancillary powers test as both a police power generator and as a constitutional litmus test for such powers. In most such cases the disposition has favoured the Crown. The troubling constitutional theory implications are multiple; however, as this paper reaches its end it is also prudent to place this recent proliferation in a socio-legal context.

Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 (9/11), influential socio-legal literature has been produced describing the political state of North America as securitized. (91) This state of securitization refers to a societal tendency to organize events and policies in a manner that can best be perceived by the masses as safe and secure. Some have argued that judicial decisions in this time period are "illustrative of the increasingly security focused nature of judicial decisions that govern the law of criminal procedure." (92) Inherent in these studies is the claim that the events of 9/11 "provided the catalyst for the widening of police surveillance and search authority." (93) Such enforcement measures are often described as preventative in nature and arise in situations where police apparently otherwise lack the power to engage in preventative enforcement. (94) In part, the solution to the problem of security has been to employ "public safety strategies" that involve a more "prominent police surveillance and search role." (95)

A recent study, exploring a discourse analysis of judicial approaches to police powers in the search and seizure canon at the Supreme Court, found a statistically significant use of security-based reasoning in the cases that have followed the attacks of 9/11. (96) It is certainly not surprising that a discourse analysis following events such as 9/11 would show a court reflecting the tensions persisting in a society that is concerned with security. For the purposes of this paper, the trend might help place some of the Waterfield-based decisions in context. With the exception of Dedman and Godoy, the remaining Charter era Waterfield-based cases have occurred after the events of 9/11. Might it be that the recent proliferation of the Waterfield analysis is a temporary blip on the radar of relatively well-circumscribed judicial roles? Could it be the case that in the coming years, as the anxieties caused by the attacks subside, the Court will return to its baseline role of constitutional guardianship upholding of the law of liberty and acting as a constitutional partner in dialogue with Parliament and the legislatures?

It seems certain that if these anxieties do not pass, the use of Waterfield will continue to create new Charter-proof police powers that have not been subjected to the rigours of the legislative process. It seems certain that continued Waterfield proliferation would continue to favour the interests of the state over those of the individual. The Court's ability to fill gaps in the law should not mean that "the Court should always expand common law rules." (97) Courts should not stray too far from their "historic role of standing firm between the individual and the state, insisting on adherence to the principle of legality." (98) As Justices LeBel and Fish argue:
 Courts form part of the institutions of a democratic state where
 democratically elected legislatures debate and enact laws in an
 open public process. Courts are vital institutions particularly
 because the Constitution itself protects fundamental human rights.
 The Constitution does not belong to the courts ... but courts must
 remain alive and sensitive to the fact that they are ultimately the
 guardians of constitutional rules, principles and values when all
 else fails. (99)


This paper has explored the proliferation of the ancillary powers test in Supreme Court jurisprudence, particularly in recent years. It has traced the British roots of the test and demonstrated how its Charter era application in Canada displays certain affinities with the Court's test under section 1 of the Charter, first developed in Oakes. Despite some analytical similarities between the tests, members of the Supreme Court have begun to take umbrage with the use of the ancillary powers test as a means of generating new police powers and subsequently finding those powers to pass constitutional muster. Often, those dissenters have called for a return to the Oakes analysis as a means of examining state infringement of civil liberties in police powers cases.

The attraction of these jurists to Oakes at first blush seems semantic; after all, does the ancillary powers calculus not cover many of the same bases as Oakes? These dissenters seem to be on strong theoretical grounds to seek abatement in the use of Waterfield as a constitutional litmus test. The ancillary powers test does not survive the analytical scrutiny leveled at (but survived by) Oakes. In particular, the ancillary powers test reserves a legislative function for the Court when the seat of police powers properly belongs in Parliament. The ancillary powers approach also situates the constitutional adjudication of those powers with the de facto legislative body (in this case, a court). The result is problematic for the principle of legality, embedded in the rule of law, but also creates problems with the human rights era approach to judicial decision making--an approach that situates the Court as a steward of thin constitutional principles.

Under the ancillary powers approach, an accused faces a court that retroactively creates a police power. That police power is then assessed by the same court, which usually finds the power to pass constitutional muster. This not only puts a court in a unique situation of conflict (because it is legislator and adjudicator), but also creates problems of intelligibility and law enforcement discretion. The citizen can never know the bounds of the powers the police possess because the common law power has not yet been held to exist, so the citizen finds themselves beholden to the discretion of the officers. A conscientious citizen cannot respond in such circumstances. A conscientious citizen cannot have fair notice in such circumstances.

Lastly, the statistical valence of the ancillary powers test seems to pull ever more in the direction of the state, aligning with a securitized notion of state power that seems particularly acute in the post 9/11 era. The use of the Waterfield test, especially as a constitutional replacement for Oakes, not only favours the state (not a problem for everyone), but it disrupts most accepted understandings of constitutional adjudication (a problem for everyone). This problem causes one to question the meaning of liberal constitutionalism in a parliamentary democracy and is theoretically and socio-politically troubling.

(1) [1986] 1 SCR 103, 53 OR (2d) 719 [Oakes].

(2) R v Waterfield; R v Lynn (1963), [1963] 3 All ER 659, [1964] 1 QB 164 (CA) [Waterfield cited to All ER].

(3) Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c 11 [Charter].

(4) See e.g. R v Daviault, [1994] 3 SCR 63, 118 DLR (4th) 469 (the Supreme Court allowed a self-induced intoxication automatism defense to a gruesome sexual assault offence. However, Parliament effectively overturned this with its implementation of s 33.1 of the Criminal Code, which prohibited the defence in the case of self-induced intoxication in situations of violence.

(5) Supra note 2.

(6) Waterfield, supra note 2 at 661 [emphasis added].

(7) Ibid at 662.

(8) [1974] SCR 443, 33 DLR (3d) 755 [Knowlton cited to SCR]; See also R v Stenning, [1970] SCR 631, 10 DLR (3d) 224.

(9) Knowlton, supra note 8 at A, a, 5.

(10) Ibid at 447.

(11) Ibid at 448.

(12) [1985] 2 SCR 2, 20 DLR (4th) 321 [Dedman cited to SCR].

(13) Ibid at 33.

(14) Ibid at 35.

(15) Ibid.

(16) Ibid at 35-36

(17) For more discussion see generally Richard Jochelson, "Crossing the Rubicon: of Sniffer Dogs, Justifications, and Preemptive Deference" (2008) 13(2) Rev Const Stud 67 at 209 [Jochelson, "Rubicon"].

(18) [1999] 1 SCR 311, 41 OR (3d) 95 [Godoy cited to SCR].

(19) Ibid at para 12.

(20) Ibid at para 17.

(21) Ibid.

(22) Ibid at para 23.

(23) 2004 SCC 52, [2004] 3 SCR 59 [Mann].

(24) Ibid at para 34.

(25) Ibid.

(26) Ibid.

(27) Ibid at para 47.

(28) Ibid at para 48.

(29) R v Orbanski; R v Elias, 2005 SCC 37, [2005] 2 SCR 3 [Orbanski].

(30) Ibid at paras 35-45, 49-53.

(31) Ibid at para 54.

(32) Ibid at paras 54 60.

(33) This point will be discussed in more detail in the next part of this paper, which takes up the dissent's critique of the majority's reasoning.

(34) R v Clayton, 2007 SCC 32, [2007] 2 SCR 725 [Clayton cited to SCR].

(35) Ibid at para 23.

(36) Ibid at para 31.

(37) Ibid at para 41.

(38) Ibid at para 19.

(39) 2008 SCC 18, [2008] 1 SCR 456 [Kang Brown].

(40) 2008 SCC 19, [2008] 1 SCR 569.

(41) Kang Brown, supra note 39 at para 50.

(42) Ibid at paras 52-54.

(43) Ibid at para 57.

(44) Ibid at paras 187, 191.

(45) Ibid at para 191.

(46) Oakes, supra note 1 at 138-40.

(47) Supra note 39 at para 184-85.

(48) Supra note 32 at para 41.

(49) Supra note 18 at para 16.

(50) Supra note 39 at para 57.

(51) Ibid at para 185.

(52) Clayton, supra note 34 at para 39.

(53) Godoy, supra note 18 at para 22.

(54) Supra note 34 at para 41.

(55) Supra note 39 at para 186.

(56) Supra note 16 at para 22.

(57) Supra note 12 at paras 68-69.

(58) Supra note 16 at para 23.

(59) See e.g. Clayton, supra note 34 at para 46; Kang Brown, supra note 39 at para 198.

(60) Supra note 12 at 17.

(61) Supra note 29 at para 81.

(62) Ibid (LeBel and Fish JJ go on to write that the creation of and justification for the limit would arise out of an initiative of the courts).

(63) Supra note 34 at para 58 (LeBel and Fish II concurring). The "different route" referred to by Binnie J is the Oakes test (supra note 1 at 138-40).

(64) Supra note 34 at para 61.

(65) Supra note 39 at para 12.

(66) Ibid.

(67) 2010 SCC 35, [20101 2 SCR 310 [Sinclair].

(68) 2009 SKCA 112, [2009] 11WWR 193.

(69) Ibid at para 147; Sinclair, supra note 66 at para 193 [emphasis in original].

(70) FL Morton & Rainer Knopff, The Charter Revolution and the Court Party (Peterborough: Broadview Press, 2000) at 34-53.

(71) Nell Seeman, "Taking Judicial Activism Seriously" (2003) Fraser Forum (special issue: Judicial Accountability in Canada) 3.

(72) See Christopher P Manfredi & James B Kelly, "Misrepresenting the Supreme Court's Record? A Comment on Sujit Choundhry and Claire E Hunter, 'Measuring Judicial Activism on the Supreme Court of Canada'" (2004) 49:3 McGill LJ 741 at 744 [Manfredi & Kelly, "Comment"]; Leon E Trakman, William Cole-Hamilton, & Sean Gatien, "R. v. Oakes 1986-1997: Back to the Drawing Board" (1998) 36:10sgoode Hall LJ 83.

(73) Manfredi & Kelly, "Comment", supra note 71 at 753.

(74) Lon L Fuller, The Morality of Law, revised ed (London: Yale University Press, 1969); see also Glen Luther, "Extra-Legal of Police Powers in Canada: The Rule of Law and the Enigma of Retroactive Decision Making" in Kelly Gorkoff & Richard Jochelson, eds, Thinking About Justice: A Book of Readings (Fernwood: Winnipeg, 2012).

(75) Jochelson, "Rubicon," supra note 17 at 231;TRS Allan, "Constitutional Rights and Common Law" (1991) 11:4 Oxford J Legal Stud 453 at 457 [Allan, "Constitutional Rights"]. See also Albert V Dicey, Introduction to the Study of Law of the Constitution, 10th ed (London: Macmillan and Company, 1965) at 23-24; James Stribopoulos, "In Search of Dialogue: The Supreme Court, Police Powers and the Charter" (2005) 31:1 Queen's LJ 1 at 20, 23-24 [Stribopoulos, "Dialogue"].

(76) Allan, "Constitutional Rights," supra note 74 at 457. See also Stribopoulos, "Dialogue," supra note 74 at 23-24.

(77) See Stribopoulos, "Dialogue," supra note 74 at 55. It is interesting to note that while the test has proliferated in Canada, it has not been used to generate police powers in Britain. Further, in its 40-year history in Britain the test has been used less than in Canada. For a discussion of the generative power of the ancillary powers tests see James Stribopoulos, "A Failed Experiment? Investigative Detentions: Ten Years Later" (2003) 41:2 Alta L Rev 335 at 348-352; Joseph R Marin, "R. v. Mann: Further Down the Slippery Slope" (2005) 42:4 Alta L Rev 1123; Tim Quigley, "Brief Investigatory Detentions: A Critique of R. v. Simpson" (2004) 41:4 Alta L Rev 935 at 938-39.

(78) See generally Seeman, supra note 70; Manfredi & Kelly, "Comment," supra note 71 ; Morton & Knopff, supra note 69; Kent Roach, The Supreme Court on Triah Judicial Activism or Democratic Dialogue (Toronto: Irwin Law, 2001); Margit Cohn & Mordechai Kremnitzer, "Judicial Activism: A Multidimensional Model" (2005) 18:2 Can JL & Jur 333; Sujit Choudhry & Claire E Hunter, "Measuring Judicial Activism on the Supreme Court of Canada: A Comment on Newfoundland (Treasury Board) v. NAPE" (2003) 48 McGill LJ 525.

(79) The notable exceptions are the sniffer dog cases of Kang-Brown, supra note 39 and R v AM, supra note 40. The majority found these particular sniffer dog searches to be warrantless because the officers did not meet the standards that the Court had created (i.e. a search on reasonable suspicion standards). However, the Court found that sniffer dog search powers can and should exist. The other exception is the search power in Mann, supra note 23. Though the Court did create a stop and search power in that case, the officers simply crossed over this line when they went into the pockets of the accused based on touching a soft object.

(80) Kang Brown, supra note 39 at para 12, LeBel and Fish JJ.

(81) See B McLachlin, "The Role of the Courts in the New Democracy" in Joseph Eliot Magnet, ed, Constitutional Law of Canada: Cases, Notes and Materials, vol 2, 8th ed (Edmonton: Juriliber, 2001) 117 [McLachlin, "Role of the Courts"]; Cohn & Kremnitzer, supra note 77 at 349-50;The Honourable Sir John Laws, "Is the High Court the Guardian of Fundamental Constitutional Rights?" (1993) PL 59; Alan N Young, "The Charter, the Supreme Court of Canada and the Constitutionalization of the Investigative Process" in Jamie Cameron, ed, The Charter's Impact on the Criminal Justice System (Toronto: Carswell, 1996) I ;The Honourable Sir John Laws, "Law and Democracy" (1995) PL 72; TRS Allan, "The Rule of Law as the Rule of Reason: Consent and Constitutionalism" (1999) 115 Law Q Rev 221 ; Ronald Dworkin, Freedom's Law: The Moral Reading of the American Constitution (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1996).

(82) McLachlin, "Role of the Courts," supra note 80 at 119.

(83) Cohn & Kremnitzer, supra note 77 at 349-50.

(84) See David Schneiderman, "Kent Roach, the Supreme Court on Trial: Judicial Activism or Democratic Dialogue" (2002) 21 Windsor YB Access Just 633; Cohn & Kremnitzer, supra note 77; Peter W Hogg & Allison A Bushell, "The Charter Dialogue between Courts and Legislatures (Or Perhaps The Charter of Rights Isn't Such a Bad Thing After All)" (1997) 35:1 Osgoode Hall LJ 75; Christopher P Manfredi & James B Kelly, "Six Degrees of Dialogue: A Response to Hogg and Bushell" (1999) 37:3 Osgoode Hall LJ 513; Peter W Hogg & Allison A Thornton, "Reply to 'Six Degrees of Dialogue'" (1999) 37:3 Osgoode Hall LJ 529; James B Kelly & Michael Murphy," Confronting Judicial Supremacy: A Defence of Judicial Activism and the Supreme Court of Canada's Legal Rights Jurisprudence" (2001) 16:1 CJLS 3 at 23-24; James Tully, Strange Multiplicity: Constitutionalism in an Age of Diversity (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1995) at 167;W J Waluchow, A Common Law Theory of Judicial Review: The Living Tree (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2007); Peter W Hogg, Allison A Bushell Thornton & Wade K Wright, "Charter Dialogue Revisited Or 'Much Ado About Metaphors'" (2007) 45:1 Osgoode Hall LJ at 32.

(85) Ibid [emphasis in original].

(86) Cohn & Kremnitzer, supra note 77 at 340; Madame Justice BM McLachlin, "The Charter: A New Role for the Judiciary?" (1991) 29:3 Alta L Rev 540.

(87) Roach, supra note 77; Hogg & Bushell, supra note 83.

(88) Hogg, Thornton & Wright, supra note 83 at 37.

(89) Sinclair, supra note 66 at para 191, citing Orbanski, supra note 29 at para 81.

(90) Sinclair, supra note 66 at para 192, citing Orbanski, supra note 29 at para 70 [in-text citations omitted].

(91) Richard Jochelson, "Multidimensional Analysis as a Window into Activism Scholarship: Searching for Meaning with Sniffer Dogs" (2009) 24:2 CJLS 231 [Jochelson, "Sniffer Dogs"]; Richard Jochelson, "Trashcans and Constitutional Custodians: The Liminal Spaces of Privacy in the Wake of Patrick" (2009) 72:2 Sask L Rev 199 [Joche]son, "Trashcans"]; Richard Jochelson, "Talking Trash with the Supreme Court of Canada: The Reasonable Expectation of Privacy Under the Charter" in Kirsten Kramar, cd, Criminology: Critical Canadian Perspectives (Don Mills, Ont: Pearson Education Canada, 2011) at 255; Jochelson, "Rubicon," supra note 17 at 209. See also William Bloss, "Escalating U.S. Police Surveillance after 9/11 : An Examination of Causes and Effects" (2008) 4:3 Surveillance & Society (Special Issue on 'Surveillance and Criminal Justice') at 208.

(92) Richard Jochelson, Melanie Janelle Murchison & Michael Weinrath, "Searching and Seizing After 9/11 : Developing and Applying Empirical Methodology to Measure Judicial Output in the Court's Section 8 Jurisprudence" (2012) 35:1 Dal LJ 179 at 180.

(93) Bloss, supra note 90 at 208. See also Gerald Posner, Why America Slept: The Failure to Prevent 9/11 (New York: Random House, 2003); Anthony D Romero, "Living in Fear: How the U.S. Government's War on Terror Impacts American Lives" in Cynthia Brown, ed, Lost Liberties: Ashcroft and the Assault on Personal Freedom (New York: The New Press, 2003); Kevin D Haggerty, "Forward: Surveillance and Political Problems" in Scan P Hicr & Josh Greenberg, eds, Surveillance: Power, Problems, and Politics (Vancouver: UBC Press, 2009) (for a more sociological treatment); Richard v Ericson and Aaron Doyle, eds, Risk and Morality (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2003) (an excellent Canadian socialogical collection on the topic of security).

RICHARD JOCHELSON, Associate Professor (of the Bar MB,) Department of Criminal Justice, University of Winnipeg
COPYRIGHT 2012 Faculty of the Common Law Section, University of Ottawa
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2012 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Title Annotation:Canada; The Oakes Test: A Historical Perspective
Author:Jochelson, Richard
Publication:Ottawa Law Review
Date:Dec 30, 2012
Previous Article:Un entretien avec le professeur emerite Joseph E. Roach.
Next Article:Influence of Oakes outside the Charter, specifically labour arbitration jurisprudence.

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2019 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters