The Canadian Living Tree Doctrine as a Comparative Model of Evolutionary Constitutional Interpretation


This paper starts with a general contextualisation of how Canadian constitutional law acquired an important role in global constitutional conversations in recent decades. It then considers, in particular, the well-known Canadian Living tree doctrine as a model of evolutionary constitutional interpretation, and argues that it is a relevant case study for our purposes since it is able to precisely link the ‘history, evolution, influence and reform’ of constitutional law in a comprehensive doctrine. The doctrine's comparative influence will be analysed in particular: the Living tree is especially relevant, since its comparative influence is traceable both in the work of courts that are historical participants in transnational judicial conversations, and courts that are new players in the game.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • • Allan James, Huscroft Grant and Lynch Nessa, 2007, ‘The Citation of Overseas Authority in Rights Litigation in New Zealand: How Much Bark? How Much Bite?’, Otago Law Review, XI: 1-35.

  • • Arbour Louise and Lafontaine Fannie, 2007, ‘Beyond Self-Congratulation: The Charter at 25 in an International Perspective’, Osgoode Hall Law Journal, XLV: 239-275.

  • • Barak Aharon, 2002, ‘A Judge on Judging: the Role of a Supreme Court in a Democracy’, Harvard Law Review, CXVI: 19-162.

  • • Barak-Erez Daphne, 1995, ‘From an Unwritten to a Written Constitution: The Israeli Challenge in American Perspective’, Columbia Human Rights Law Review, XXVI: 309-355.

  • • Barbera Augusto, 1975, ‘Art. 2’, in Branca Giuseppe (ed), Commentario della Costituzione, Zanichelli, Bologna.

  • • Bastarache Michel, 1998, ‘The Challenge of the Law in the New Millenium’, Manitoba Law Journal, XXV: 411-419.

  • • Binnie Ian, 2004, ‘Constitutional Interpretation and Original Intent’, Supreme Court Law Review, XXIII: 345-382.

  • • Choudhry Sujit, 1999, ‘Globalization in Search of Justification: Toward a Theory of Comparative Constitutional Interpretation’, Indiana Law Journal, LXXIV: 819-892.

  • • Choudhry Sujit (ed), 2006, The Migration of Constitutional Ideas, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

  • • Cyr Hugo, 2014, ‘Conceptual Metaphors for an Unfinished Constitutio’, Review of Constitutional Studies, XIX: 1-34.

  • • Douin Claude-Sophie, 1977, Le feìdeìralisme autrichien, LGDJ, Paris.

  • • Gamper Anna, 2005, ‘Judge Made Federalism? The Role of the Constitutional Court in Austria’,, XIX: 1-25.

  • • Goldman Alvin I., 1999, Knowledge in a Social World, Clarendon Press, Oxford.

  • • Goldsworthy Jeffrey, 2000, ‘Interpreting the Constitution in Its Second Century’, Melbourne University Law Review, XXIV: 677-710.

  • • Grimm Dieter, 2011, ‘Constitutional Adjudication and Constitutional Interpretation: Between Law and Politics’, National University of Juridical Sciences Law Review, IV: 15-29.

  • • Hirschl Ran, 2014, Comparative Matters: The Renaissance of Comparative Constitutional Law, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

  • • Hogg Peter W., 2007, Constitutional Law of Canada, vol. II, 5th ed., Scarborough: Thomson, Toronto.

  • • Jackson Vicky C., 2006, ‘Constitutions as ‘Living Trees’? Comparative Constitutional Law and Interpretive Metaphors’, Fordham Law Review, LXXV: 921-960.

  • • Kammen, Michael, 1987, ‘A Vehicle of Life': The Founders’ Intentions and American Perceptions of Their Living Constitution’, Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, CXXXI: 325-340.

  • • Karazivan Noura, 2017, ‘Constitutional Structure and Original Intent: a Canadian Perspective’, University of Illinois Law Review, II: 629-655.

  • • Kirby Michael, 2000, ‘Constitutional Interpretation and Original Intent: A Form of Ancestor Worship?’, Melbourne University Law Review, XXIV: 1.

  • • L’Heureux-Dubé Claire, 1998, ‘The Importance of Dialogue: Globalization and the International Impact of the Rehnquist Court’, Tulsa Law Review, XXXIV: 15-40.

  • • La Forest Gerard V., 1994, ‘The Use of American Precedents in Canadian Courts’, Maine Law Review, XLVI: 211-220.

  • • Law David S. and Versteeg Mila, 2011, ‘The Evolution and Ideology of Global Constitutionalism’, California Law Review, XCIX: 1163-1258.

  • • Law David S. and Versteeg Mila, 2012, ‘The Declining Influence of the United States Constitution’, New York University Law Review, LXXXVII: 762-858.

  • • Lefler Rebecca, 2001, ‘A Comparison of Comparison: Use of Foreign Case Law as Persuasive Authority by the United States Supreme Court, the Supreme Court of Canada and the High Court of Australia’, Southern California Interdisciplinary Law Journal, XI: 165-191.

  • • Liptak, Adam, 2008, ‘U.S. Court, a Longtime Beacon, Is Now Guiding Fewer Nations’, N.Y. Times, Sept. 18 2008, available at

  • • McBain Howard L., 1927, The Living Constitution: a Consideration of the Realities and Legends of our Fundamental Law, The Workers Education Bureau Press, New York.

  • • McCrudden Christopher, 2000, ‘Common Law of Human Rights? Transnational Judicial Conversations on Constitutional Rights’, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, XX: 499-532.

  • • McLachlin Beverley, 1999, ‘Criminal Law: Towards an International Legal Order’, Hong Kong Law Journal, XXIX: 448-462.

  • • Mortati Costantino, 1969, Istituzioni di diritto pubblico, vol. II CEDAM, Padova.

  • • Navot Suzie, 2013, ‘Creating a Constitution—The Use of Foreign Precedents by the Supreme Court (1994–2010)’, in Groppi Tania and Ponthoreau Marie-Claire (eds), The Use of Foreign Precedents by Constitutional Judges, Hart Publishing, Oxford, 129-153.

  • • Neudorf Lorne, 2017, ‘Taking Comparative Law Seriously: Rethinking the Supreme Court of Canada’s Modern Approach to Statutory Interpretation’, Statute Law Review, XXXVIII: 1.

  • • Oliphant Benjamin, 2014, ‘Interpreting the Charter with International Law: Pitfalls and Principles’, Appeal, XIX: 105-129.

  • • Palmer Vernon V., 2007, ‘Two Rival Theories of Mixed Legal Systems’, Electronic Journal of Comparative Law, XII: 1-28.

  • • Ricoeur Paul, 1975, La Métaphore vive, Seuil, Paris.

  • • Santana Herrera Maria Soledad, 2010, ‘El derecho comparado en la jurisprudencia del Tribunal Constitucional español’, Revista de derecho constitucional europeo, XIV: 427-447.

  • • Sartori Giovanni, 2004, Ingegneria costituzionale comparata, Il Mulino, Bologna.

  • • Slaughter Anne-Marie, 1994, ‘A Typology of Transjudicial Communication’, University of Richmond Law Review, XXIX: 99-137.

  • • Slaughter Anne-Marie, 2004, A New World Order, Princeton University Press, Princeton.

  • • Strauss David A., 2010, The Living Constitution, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

  • • Taylor Greg, 2006, Characterisation in Federations: Six Countries Compared, Springer, Berlin.

  • • Teitel Ruti, 2004, ‘Review: Comparative Constitutional Law in a Global Age’, Harvard Law Review, CXVII: 2570-2596.

  • • Tremblay Luc B., 1995, ‘L’Interprétation téléologique des droits constitutionnels’, Revue Juridique Thémis, XXIX: 459-526.

  • • Tremblay Luc B., 2006, ‘Two Models of Constitutionalism and the Legitimacy of Law: Dicey or Marshall?’, Oxford University Commonwealth Law Journal, VI: 77-101.

  • • Volokh Eugene, 2012, ‘U.S. Justices’ Foreign Statements About the U.S. Constitution’, available at the website (last access 5 November 2017).

  • • Walton Frederick P., 1899, ‘The Civil Law and the Common Law of Canada’, The Juridical Review, XI: 282-301.

  • • Waluchow Wilfrid J., 2007, A Common Law Theory of Judicial Review: The Living Tree, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

  • • Warner La Forest Anne, 2004, ‘Domestic Application of International Law in Charter Cases: Are We There Yet?’, University of British Columbia Law Review, XXXVII: 157-218.

  • • Waters Melissa A., 2005, ‘Mediating Norms and Identity: The Role of Transnational Judicial Dialogue in Creating and Enforcing International Law’, Georgetown Law Journal, XCIII: 487-574.


Journal + Issues