The legitimacy of judicial review based upon Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms remains a topic of intense public debate. This thesis considers whether the typical justificatory arguments in favour of judicial review can withstand critical scrutiny. Chapter one canvasses the arguments of many of Canada’s Charter sceptics as well as select international commentators. Chapter two examines Peter Hogg’s claim that it is appropriate to consider the process of judicial review as a form of institutional dialogue between courts and legislative assemblies. It is argued that judicial supremacy is a more accurate description of current institutional arrangements. Chapter three scrutinizes the claim that judicial review has some special capacity to provide appropriate protection for minority rights. Finally, chapter four examines whether section 33 of the Charter can be rehabilitated in order to recalibrate current institutional arrangements. I conclude that it may be possible to limit judicial supremacy.