Constitutional Accommodation and the Rule(s) of Courts
AbstractConstitutional authority for the development and implementation of the rules of court lies with both the legislature, by its statutory power, and the judiciary, by the constitutional principles of judicial independence. The court rules in question here are those that govern court accessibility as well as the roles and responsibilities of parties in civil litigation. The three existing models of ride-making are court-led, where a majority of government officials, and collaborative, which lacks an evident majority of either. These rule-making bodies do not control court fees, the executive does, but in a system with any model, the judiciary always has the final say in interpreting and implementing the rules or fees of the court. This creates an unavoidable conflict between the government and the judiciary. The relevant principles of judicial independence in this conflict are the inherent powers of the courts to control all aspects of judicial function, as well as the necessity of accessibility to the courts. The integrity of the administration of justice requires a constitutional compromise that respects these principles and creates an interdependent balance between the judiciary and Parliament. An independent commission composed of non-judicial, non-governmental mediators where disputes between the courts and the governments may be brought would support this requirement. Such a commission would instill the necessary1 confidence in both parties, and would facilitate an effective collaborative guardianship over the administration of court rules and fees while preserving the constitutional principles. Constitutional authority for the development and implementation of the rules of court lies with both the legislature, by its statutory power, and the judiciary, by the constitutional principles of judicial independence. The court rules in question here are those that govern court accessibility as well as the roles and responsibilities of parties in civil litigation.
Author(s) retain original copyright in the substantive content of the titled work, subject to the following rights that are granted indefinitely:
- Author(s) grant the Alberta Law Review permission to produce, publish, disseminate, and distribute the titled work in electronic format to online database services, including, but not limited to: LexisNexis, QuickLaw, HeinOnline, and EBSCO;
- Author(s) grant the Alberta Law Review permission to post the titled work on the Alberta Law Review website and/or related websites.
- Author(s) agree that the titled work may be used for educational or instructional purposes and/or in educational or instructional materials. The author(s) acknowledge that the titled work is subject to other such "fair dealing" provisions and applicable legislation.
- Author(s) grant a limited license to those accessing the titled work from an electronic database or an Alberta Law Review website to download the titled work onto their computer and to print a copy for their own personal, non-commercial use, subject to proper attribution.
To use the journal's content elsewhere, permission must be obtained from the author(s) and the Alberta Law Review.