 | This article relies largely or entirely on a single source. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please help improve this article by introducing citations to additional sources. Find sources: "Operation Dismantle v R" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (June 2024) |
Supreme Court of Canada case
| Operation Dismantle v R | |
|---|---|
 Supreme Court of Canada | |
| Hearing: 14–15 February 1984 Judgment: 9 May 1985 | |
| Citations | 1 SCR 441 |
| Docket No. | 18154 |
| Prior history | Appeal from the Federal Court of Appeal |
| Ruling | Appeal dismissed. |
| Court membership | |
| Reasons given | |
| Majority | Dickson J., joined by Estey, McIntyre, Chouinard and Lamer JJ. |
| Concurrence | Wilson J. |
| Laskin CJ. and Ritchie and Beetz JJ. took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. | |
Operation Dismantle v R 1 S.C.R. 441 is a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada where the court rejected a section 7 Charter challenge against the government for allowing the US government to test cruise missiles over Canadian territory.
It was argued that the use of cruise missiles by the US government increased the risk of nuclear war and that Canada's participation made Canada a more likely target.
Chief Justice Brian Dickson, writing for the majority, struck down the claim on the basis that given the unpredictability of foreign policy decisions of sovereign nations, suggestion of an increase in danger can only be speculative. It would be impossible to prove a causal link between the testing and the increased threat.
In her reasons, Wilson J. dismissed the use of the political question in Canadian law. She examined the jurisprudence behind the doctrine identified its basis in the core US constitutional principle of the separation of powers. She distinguished this from Canadian constitutional law where separation is not a core principle, but rather is only secondary. Instead, there is a foundation in overlap between the branches as demonstrated in the system of responsible government. Wilson concludes that section 24 of the Charter requires judicial review of the executive branch of the government. For an issue to be justiciable the question must raise a legal issue. She further noted that exercise of the royal prerogative can be judicially reviewed under section 32 of the Charter.
External links
- Full text of Supreme Court of Canada decision at LexUM and CanLII
.svg){kind=small}  | This article about Canadian law is a stub. You can help Misplaced Pages by expanding it. |
- SCC Case Information - Docket 18154 Supreme Court of Canada