Canadian Exclusion of Evidence Under Section 24(2) of the Charter: An Empirical Model of Judicial Discourse

Abstract

Margit Cohn and Mordechai Kremnitzer developed a multidimensional 17-parameter model, in 2005, to measure the judicial discourse in the decisions of constitutional courts. A court rendered a decision that was activist when it made a decision outside the traditional scope of judicial constraints on government action and that was restrained when they adhered to the principles of traditional adjudication roles. Previously, this model was successfully operationalized, by Jochelson et al. (2012), to analyse significant changes in the interpretation of search and seizure law in the judicial discourse of the Supreme Court of Canada, before and after 9/11. We now use the model to expand that analysis to section 24(2) exclusion of evidence cases under the Charter. By using a 1–10 Likert scale for each Cohn/Kremnitzer indicium of analysis, a value was assigned to each variable of every case and then the pre-9/11 case group were compared to the post-9/11 one. Our data analysis shows increased restraint on the part of the Supreme Court in 7 of the 13 variables of judicial discourse measured after 9/11, even when factoring in the landmark decision in R v Grant (2009). These changes are consistent with the post-9/11 literature on securitization: 9/11 was a moment when the state was given excuses to control, using security as justification for precautionary and risk-averse actions. While we cannot assert any causal relationships between these changes and 9/11, the caveats still permit significant findings, the most intriguing being that the Court has shifted, in its discourse on the exclusion of evidence, toward an ethic of more restraint. These findings stand alongside other studies that have found similarly in the area of search and seizure law.

Representing Disability in Tort Litigation: An Empirical Analysis of Judicial Discourse (1998–2018)

“…Content analysis in legal research is an empirical form of discourse analysis. It entails a systemic analysis of many judicial rulings representing a particular field, time, or setting and facilitates drawing large-scale conclusions regarding the relationships between law and society (Hall and Wight 2008; Murchison and Jochelson 2015; Kirkham and O’Loughlin 2019). Content analysis of judicial discourse allows us to interrogate the social construction of ideas (Barret, Fann Thomas, and Hocevar 1995) and the cultural contexts and political settings that shape judges’ vocabulary and rhetorical preferences (Kalimo, Meyer, and Mylly 2018).…”