In a recent post I explored the concept of “judicial minimalism” coming out of a recent Supreme Court decision not to revisit a precedent on whether the Charter of Rights applied to activities of Canadian authorities outside of Canada. One of the issues that came out of that case was the proper role of third party interveners before the Court, with the majority suggesting interveners went beyond their proper role (by introducing a new legal issue (whether the precedent should be overturned).
Thanks for breaking down the subject, a great summary of the role of interveners.
"Rowe’s implicit conclusion that arguments about whether a particular precedent should stand ought to be out of bounds."
Does Justice Rowe have an opinion about how precedents can be challenged?