This book is a systematic study of constitutional legislation in Canada in relation to constitutional development. In deciding whether legislation in the Canadian courts is constitutionally valid or invalid, the author discusses the history, theory, special problems, and rules relating to the function of the courts. He believes that our courts have never clearly enunciated the constitutional basis of their right to review legislation for validity, nor have the permissible limitations on the right been analysed. Thus the rôle of the courts in the operation of the constitution has rarely been articulated.
The author's thesis is that constitutional change by amendment is not an effective means of keeping the constituion abreast of developments, and that this function should be taken over by the courts. Based on an analysis of the results of past judicial review this study urges reassessment and change to provide more functional constitutional jurisprudence: it suggests a general liberalization of rules permitting citizens to raise constitutional issues before the courts, a liberalization of rules of evidence so that courts may be adequately informed as to the social and economic contexts of legislation, and a critical reassessment of earlier decisions rather than a strict adherence to prevedent in all cases. In its appeal for a more modern and suitable constitutional jurisprudence this book calls for some radical changes and should encourage the legal profession and the judiciary to re-examine the foundation of existing law and its relation to the present social and political structure of Canada.