{"id":327,"date":"2021-11-22T23:33:53","date_gmt":"2021-11-23T06:33:53","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/dahlemdefence.com\/news\/?p=327"},"modified":"2022-01-21T14:27:57","modified_gmt":"2022-01-21T21:27:57","slug":"constitution-check-stare-decisis","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/dahlemdefence.com\/news\/2021\/11\/22\/constitution-check-stare-decisis\/","title":{"rendered":"Constitution Check – Stare Decisis"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

The Supreme Court of Canada and Stare Decisis – R. v. Comeau [2018] 1. S.C.R <\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The concept of stare decisis <\/em> is a very important one for our law. The concept is simple – the decisions of a higher court are binding on the lower courts. This is an essential element of legal interpretation, because it brings predictability to the law. A legal question that has been decided stays decided. This binding precedent is described:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[26] Common law courts are bound by authoritative precedent. This principle \u2014 stare decisis \u2014 is fundamental for guaranteeing certainty in the law. Subject to extraordinary exceptions, a lower court must apply the decisions of higher courts to the facts before it. This is called vertical stare decisis. Without this foundation, the law would be ever in flux \u2014subject to shifting judicial whims or the introduction of new esoteric evidence by litigants dissatisfied by the status quo.<\/p>R. v. Comeau [2018] 1 S.C.R. <\/cite><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

It is possible to get a court to reconsider established precedent, but it is rare, and requires that society or the circumstances must have changed substantially. The court writes:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[31] Not only is the exception narrow \u2014 the evidence must \u201cfundamentally shif[t] the parameters of the debate\u201d \u2014 it is not a general invitation to reconsider binding authority on the basis of any type of evidence. As alluded to in Bedford and Carter, evidence of a signifi cant evolution in the foundational legislative and social facts \u2014 \u201cfacts about society at large\u201d \u2014 is one type of evidence that can fundamentally shift the parameters of the relevant legal debate: Bedford, at paras. 48-49; Carter, at para. 47. That is, the exception has been found to be engaged where the underlying social context that framed the original legal debate is profoundly altered<\/p> R. v. Comeau [2018] 1 S.C.R. <\/cite><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Basically, the no court can ignore binding precedent from a higher court except in very narrow and rare circumstances. The whole decision can be found here: <\/p>\n\n\n\n

https:\/\/canlii.ca\/t\/hrkm6<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n