Canadians have long held their courts in high regard, viewing them as essential to public trust and fair dispute resolution. However, recent trends suggest that confidence in the justice system is waning, particularly at the appellate and Supreme Court levels. Decisions from these courts are increasingly seen as politically divisive, raising concerns about the role of the judiciary in a democratic society.

The crux of the issue lies in the interpretation of the _Charter of Rights and Freedoms_. While the _Charter_ is intended to safeguard individual rights from the whims of elected officials, critics argue that its application has expanded the judiciary's role beyond mere interpretation of law. This shift has led to what some describe as judicial law-making, which undermines the stability of the constitution.

The reliance on the “living tree” doctrine has allowed judges to interpret laws in ways that some believe blur the lines between legal judgments and policy decisions. This has resulted in contentious public policy issues being decided in courtrooms rather than through parliamentary debate.

In response to these concerns, the Macdonald-Laurier Institute has announced the formation of the Landmark Cases Council. This initiative aims to bring together legal scholars to analyze Supreme Court decisions critically. The council's goal is to clarify where courts have succeeded, where they have deviated from their intended role, and how Canadians can regain confidence in the rule of law.

The council emphasizes the importance of understanding landmark cases not just in terms of their outcomes but also in how judicial philosophies have influenced legal interpretations. It advocates for a legal system that remains a stable and predictable guide for governance, rather than a fluid entity shaped by individual judges' moral philosophies.

Critics point to several instances where courts have overstepped their bounds. For example, the introduction of a proportionality test has led to complex comparisons between individual rights and policy goals, complicating constitutional reviews. Additionally, a recent ruling struck down a mandatory minimum sentence based on a hypothetical scenario, affecting numerous sentencing provisions.

The council argues that while some areas of law see judges adhering to their roles effectively, this has not been the case under the _Charter_. They aim to provide expert analyses of key cases to illustrate how judicial roles can be preserved and how decisions might be approached differently.

The Landmark Cases Council seeks to foster a better understanding of the judicial process among the public, policymakers, and legal professionals. It aims to demonstrate that respect for the courts and confidence in democratic governance can coexist. As trust in legal institutions faces challenges, the council represents a significant effort to rebalance judicial and legislative authority in line with Canada’s constitutional traditions.