The Prudent Parliament and Section 24(1)

The appeal of Attorney General of Canada v Power was heard by the Supreme Court of Canada on December 7, 2023. The case concerns the availability of damages under section 24(1) of the Charter for legislative action. In response, our paper argues: 1) the text of section 24(1) does not bar damages for unconstitutional legislation; 2) the history of section 24(1) points towards damages for legislative action; 3) unwritten constitutional principles suggest courts should treat different types of damages differently; 4) precedent suggests Crown liability for unconstitutional legislation should proceed on a negligence standard for some types of damages; and 5) meeting the standard of care for such negligence should require Parliament to obtain legal advice. In advancing these arguments, we reconsider early Charter scholarship on the value of private law concepts to the unique public law context of section 24(1) in light of more recent jurisprudence.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Constitutional Forum / Forum constitutionnel
Published
2024-11-21
DOI
https://doi.org/10.21991/cf29482
Primary Topic
Legal Issues in South Africa
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

The Prudent Parliament and Section 24(1)

Peter Wills, Mary Angela Rowe
Constitutional Forum / Forum constitutionnel
Legal Issues in South Africa
article

The Prudent Parliament and Section 24(1)

Peter Wills, Mary Angela Rowe
article en

Abstract

The appeal of Attorney General of Canada v Power was heard by the Supreme Court of Canada on December 7, 2023. The case concerns the availability of damages under section 24(1) of the Charter for legislative action. In response, our paper argues: 1) the text of section 24(1) does not bar damages for unconstitutional legislation; 2) the history of section 24(1) points towards damages for legislative action; 3) unwritten constitutional principles suggest courts should treat different types of damages differently; 4) precedent suggests Crown liability for unconstitutional legislation should proceed on a negligence standard for some types of damages; and 5) meeting the standard of care for such negligence should require Parliament to obtain legal advice. In advancing these arguments, we reconsider early Charter scholarship on the value of private law concepts to the unique public law context of section 24(1) in light of more recent jurisprudence.

Constitutional Forum / Forum constitutionnelVol. 33(2)
University of Oxford (GB)
Peace, Justice and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 61%
Legal Issues in South Africa
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

The Prudent Parliament and Section 24(1) — Peter Wills, Mary Angela Rowe · Constitutional Forum / Forum constitutionnel (2024) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS