Il y a 150 ans, John Stuart Mill dénonçait l'emprise tyrannique de la morale publique sur la vie des individus et affirmait que le principe du préjudice à autrui constitue l'unique critère en vertu duquel l'État peut légitimement interférer avec la liberté individuelle. Près d'un siècle plus tard, en réaction au rapport Wolfenden, Lord Devlin articulait une version de la thèse du moralisme juridique en faveur du maintien de l'interdiction criminelle des pratiques homosexuelles en privé entre adultes consentants. Cette thèse du moralisme juridique a fait l'objet de nombreuses critiques. Selon deux des plus influents philosophes et théoriciens du droit du XXe siècle, Herbert L.A. Hart et Ronald Dworkin, le rôle légitime des valeurs de la communauté, dans la justification de l'intervention coerctive de l'État dans la vie des individus, doit être déterminé du point de vue de la morale critique. Ces débats philosophiques ont profondément influencé le discours judiciaire au Canada. La jurisprudence de la Cour suprême du Canada depuis l'avènement de la Charte témoigne de deux tendances dans l'interprétation et l'application du principe du préjudice lors de l'examen de la légitimité des objectifs législatifs à la première étape du test Oakes. Selon une première approche, qui légitimise souvent un activisme judiciaire, la justification des mesures attentatoires doit reposer sur la démonstration d'un préjudice aux valeurs officiellement reconnues. Selon une deuxième approche, qui préconise plutôt une attitude de déférence envers les choix moraux du législateur, la démonstration d'un préjudice n'est pas un prérequis : l'existence de considérations morales objectives suffit. / 150 years ago, John Stuart Mill denounced the tyrannical hold of public morality on the life of individuals and asserted that the principle of harm to others constituted the sole criterion under which the State may legitimately interfere with individual liberties. A century later, in response to the Wolfenden report, Lord Devlin developed a version of the legal moralism thesis which supported the criminal prohibition of homosexual practices made in private between consenting adults. This thesis of legal moralism has been widely criticized. According to two of the most influent legal philosophers and theorists of the twentieth century, Herbert L.A. Hart and Ronald Dworkin, the legitimate role of community values in the justification of coercive intervention of the State in the lives of individuals must be determined according to the principles of critical morality. These philosophical debates have profoundly influenced the judicial discourse in Canada. The Supreme Court of Canada decisions rendered since the entrenchment of the Charter show two trends in the interpretation and application of the harm principle in the examination of the legitimacy of the legislative objectives at the first stage of the Oakes test. According to the first trend, that often legitimizes judicial activism, the justification of an infringement must rely on the demonstration of a prejudice to values officially recognized. According to the second trend, which favours deference towards the legislator's moral choices, the harm principle is not a requisite: The existence of objective moral considerations suffices.

Il y a 150 ans, John Stuart Mill dénonçait l'emprise tyrannique de la morale publique sur la vie des individus et affirmait que le principe du préjudice à autrui constitue l'unique critère en vertu duquel l'État peut légitimement interférer avec la liberté individuelle. Près d'un siècle plus tard, en réaction au rapport Wolfenden, Lord Devlin articulait une version de la thèse du moralisme juridique en faveur du maintien de l'interdiction criminelle des pratiques homosexuelles en privé entre adultes consentants. Cette thèse du moralisme juridique a fait l'objet de nombreuses critiques. Selon deux des plus influents philosophes et théoriciens du droit du XXe siècle, Herbert L.A. Hart et Ronald Dworkin, le rôle légitime des valeurs de la communauté, dans la justification de l'intervention coerctive de l'État dans la vie des individus, doit être déterminé du point de vue de la morale critique. Ces débats philosophiques ont profondément influencé le discours judiciaire au Canada. La jurisprudence de la Cour suprême du Canada depuis l'avènement de la Charte témoigne de deux tendances dans l'interprétation et l'application du principe du préjudice lors de l'examen de la légitimité des objectifs législatifs à la première étape du test Oakes. Selon une première approche, qui légitimise souvent un activisme judiciaire, la justification des mesures attentatoires doit reposer sur la démonstration d'un préjudice aux valeurs officiellement reconnues. Selon une deuxième approche, qui préconise plutôt une attitude de déférence envers les choix moraux du législateur, la démonstration d'un préjudice n'est pas un prérequis : l'existence de considérations morales objectives suffit. / 150 years ago, John Stuart Mill denounced the tyrannical hold of public morality on the life of individuals and asserted that the principle of harm to others constituted the sole criterion under which the State may legitimately interfere with individual liberties. A century later, in response to the Wolfenden report, Lord Devlin developed a version of the legal moralism thesis which supported the criminal prohibition of homosexual practices made in private between consenting adults. This thesis of legal moralism has been widely criticized. According to two of the most influent legal philosophers and theorists of the twentieth century, Herbert L.A. Hart and Ronald Dworkin, the legitimate role of community values in the justification of coercive intervention of the State in the lives of individuals must be determined according to the principles of critical morality. These philosophical debates have profoundly influenced the judicial discourse in Canada. The Supreme Court of Canada decisions rendered since the entrenchment of the Charter show two trends in the interpretation and application of the harm principle in the examination of the legitimacy of the legislative objectives at the first stage of the Oakes test. According to the first trend, that often legitimizes judicial activism, the justification of an infringement must rely on the demonstration of a prejudice to values officially recognized. According to the second trend, which favours deference towards the legislator's moral choices, the harm principle is not a requisite: The existence of objective moral considerations suffices.

The Canadian constitutional crisis of 2008 triggered a renewed interest in the structure and workings of Canada’s institutions of government. Particular controversy was generated by Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s assertion that only the political party with the most seats in the House of Commons has the right to form a government and that it is illegitimate for the opposition parties to form a coalition with a legislative majority. Peter Russell terms these contentions “Harper’s New Rules”, and is one of a large group of scholars who deride the rules as being undemocratic and in violation of the traditional practice of parliamentary democracy and responsible government (which holds that the House of Commons is the final arbiter on the viability of potential governments). This thesis investigates the quick rejection of Harper’s Rules and determines that their attempt to enforce a critical moral standard on Harper is problematic because for a constitutional convention to be binding on political actors, it requires a consensus on how a convention promotes constitutional principle--a consensus that does not exist about how a party receives a mandate to govern. Throughout Canada’s history with minority government transitions, there has been a subtle discourse that implies many political actors have operated under the norm that the largest party in the House of Commons does indeed have a right to form the government. As well, many of the claims that are made about the democratic origin and purpose of the structure of responsible government are difficult to substantiate and can be challenged. The resulting disagreement makes it difficult to declare a constitutional interpretation to be wrong, given the malleable character of conventions, and that these constitutional disputes can generate into crisis and be exploited for partisan gain. This is the situation the federal party system may soon find itself in, as likely future minority governments will continuously bring the opposing conceptions of a mandate into conflict. This thesis concludes that determining constitutional conventions based on how they defend principle is a hazardous approach because political actors can always frame their actions in the rhetoric of democratic legitimacy, and if the actor can avoid serious political repercussions or find support in the public, then the interpretation becomes viable.