Article content continued

The rule of law is opposed to lawlessness and the exercise of arbitrary or unlimited power. It requires government action to be justified by publicly available pre-existing rules. It also requires those rules to be impartially enforced, whether by the police, by administrative decision-makers or by the courts. Under the rule of law, citizens have the opportunity to challenge the authorities’ decisions that affect them and argue that these decisions are contrary to law. In a constitutional democracy such as Canada, where the power of lawmakers is itself limited by the supreme law of the constitution, citizens can contest the constitutionality of the laws that would otherwise apply to them.

Legal constraints and procedures slow us down when they do not altogether prevent us from doing as we wish

But the rule of law also imposes restraints and responsibilities on individuals. It means that, people are expected to follow the law even if they think their rights are being violated. They are expected to address themselves to the relevant legal institutions, and to follow the procedures those institutions impose. What is more, when these institutions make decisions unfavourable to them, they must — once they have exhausted opportunities for complaint, review, or appeal — abide by their decision. Even civil disobedience traditionally involves acceptance of punishment for law-breaking.

No doubt all this can be quite burdensome. Legal constraints and procedures slow us down when they do not altogether prevent us from doing as we wish. Bureaucrats, police officers and politicians can be impatient of restraints on their pursuit of efficiency, order and good policy. Individuals can resent what they perceive to be unjust decisions — the opportunity to be heard is not always a substitute for having one’s claims recognized. And, of course, legal procedures are often too long and ruinously expensive. There is much room for improvement in the Canadian legal system.