The Judicialisation of Parliamentary Privilege in Canada: A Cautionary Tale

Lorne Neudorf ()
Additional contact information
Lorne Neudorf: La Trobe Law School, La Trobe University, Bundoora, VIC 3086, Australia

Laws, 2024, vol. 13, issue 3, 1-28

Abstract: Over the past few decades, Canadian courts have exerted strong influence over the meaning and operation of parliamentary privileges. Starting with a television producer’s Charter rights claim to access a provincial legislature’s public gallery and followed by an employment law claim made by the chauffeur to the Speaker of the House of Commons, the Supreme Court of Canada has articulated an approach under which judges closely scrutinise privileges invoked by legislatures when defending themselves against litigated claims. By applying the doctrine of necessity, Canadian courts make authoritative rulings on what counts as a valid legislative function and the processes and activities needed to fulfil those functions. Canadian courts also require the scope of parliamentary privileges to be pleaded in narrow terms that correspond to the details of a plaintiff’s claim, which has resulted in a hollowed-out conception of privilege over time. In scrutinising the necessity and scope of privilege, Canadian courts have chipped away at the separation of powers. Further, the Canadian approach unjustifiably prioritises the judicial vindication of private rights over the institutional needs of the legislature. Courts in other jurisdictions should reject the Canadian approach and avoid scrutinising the propriety of the exercise of privilege through a necessity test. Instead, courts should engage in a more limited jurisdictional test to confirm the availability of a relevant category of parliamentary privilege in law or historical practice. Judicialising parliamentary privileges weakens the autonomy and vitality of legislative institutions, with the Canadian approach serving as a cautionary tale. Ultimately, the legislature is accountable to the electorate for the exercise of its privileges. To promote fairness and reduce the risk of court interference, parliaments should strengthen the accountability and transparency associated with the exercise of their privileges, including by developing guidelines for their appropriate use.

Keywords: parliamentary privilege; legislative privilege; institutional relationships; parliaments and courts; legal institutions; judicial review; separation of powers; constitutional architecture; legislative autonomy; doctrine of necessity; Canadian jurisprudence; comparative law (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: D78 E61 E62 F13 F42 F68 K0 K1 K2 K3 K4 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2024
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/2075-471X/13/3/26/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/2075-471X/13/3/26/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jlawss:v:13:y:2024:i:3:p:26-:d:1383413

Access Statistics for this article

Laws is currently edited by Ms. Heather Liang

More articles in Laws from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().