**Concerns Rise Over Judicial Overreach in Canada**

Judicial overreach is increasingly becoming a concern in Canada. Recent decisions, including an Ontario judge's ruling to prevent the removal of bike lanes, highlight a trend where judicial authority is encroaching on the responsibilities of elected governments. This shift raises questions about the balance of power within the Canadian constitution.

Critics argue that the expansion of judicial power undermines the relationship between Parliament and the courts. They contend that it replaces decisions made by democratically elected representatives with those made by appointed judges. According to these critics, the primary responsibility for maintaining peace, order, and good governance lies with Parliament and provincial legislatures. This principle was established at Confederation when the framers of the British North America Act designed Canada’s constitutional framework to mirror that of the United Kingdom.

In the Westminster system, Parliament is primarily responsible for creating and amending laws, while the judiciary's role is to resolve disputes based on existing laws. The introduction of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982 is often cited as a turning point that altered this traditional understanding. However, many legal experts argue that the Charter did not fundamentally change Canada’s constitutional order. Instead, it provided courts with new powers to review legislation while maintaining continuity with the country’s constitutional heritage.

Judges in the early years of the Charter recognized its connection to Canada’s constitutional history. One prominent jurist noted that the Charter was “not intended to undo 900 years of constitutional development.” Furthermore, the Charter is rooted in the principles of English common law, which emphasizes justice and reason.

Despite this, the erosion of Canada’s Westminster tradition has become evident over time. Legal education in Canada has shifted focus, often neglecting the foundational principles of the constitution. This has led to what some describe as undisciplined judicial power that conflicts with the role of courts in a constitutional democracy.

The courts have adopted a “living tree” approach to constitutional interpretation, which has allowed them to extend the meaning of laws beyond their original text and intent. This has resulted in judicial interventions in various policy areas, including contentious social issues like assisted suicide and drug addiction treatment, as well as urban planning and climate change policies.

Judicial authority has also expanded into criminal sentencing, with courts striking down mandatory minimum sentences, including those for serious offenses like child luring, citing them as “cruel and unusual punishment.” As a result, the direction of national policy is increasingly influenced by judicial decisions rather than democratic processes.

This trend has raised alarms about public trust in the judiciary. Many believe that the courts' overreach damages their credibility and undermines political authority. In response to these concerns, the Macdonald-Laurier Institute is launching the Judicial Foundations Project to address these issues and promote a better understanding of the constitutional framework in Canada.