This study represents a qualitative and quantitative analysis of the Supreme Court of Canada's treatment of the exclusionary rule set out in s.24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The objective of this thesis is to contribute to the theoretical debate between legal positivism and legal realism by examining judicial discretion and the application of s.24(2) by the justices of the Supreme Court. The goal of this work is to demonstrate the weakness of the positivist school in its basic premise that judicial decisions are based solely on the application of the rule of law. It is contended that Supreme Court decisions are derived not only from the words of the law, but also from extra-legal factors, since judges possess certain predispositions by virtue of their own personal experiences. This thesis will illustrate that the exercise of judicial discretion by the Court in its interpretation of s.24(2) has had a profound impact on the nature of Canadian criminal justice policy, moving Canada even closer to the due process model of criminal justice and further from the crime control model than was intended by the framers of the Charter. Both the qualitative and quantitative analysis of s.24(2) Supreme Court decisions show that the language of this provision is often circumvented by the justices who are not constrained by either the intention of the framers or even their own precedent. Consequently, the vague wording of this provision coupled with the discretion conferred on these justices allows the Court to read the exclusionary provision in a manner that best accommodates the exclusionary philosophies of the majority of Supreme Court justices.

No description available.