Canada (Attorney General) v. Bedford, 2012 ONCA ... - York University

Page: 27found that the liberty infringement accords with the principles of fundamentaljustice. Accordingly, the constitutional challenge to both provisions failed.The role of precedent[56] A brief discussion of precedent will assist in assessing the AttorneyGeneral of Canada‟s submission that the constitutionality of the bawdy-houseand communicating provisions is settled law. The notion of binding precedent,often used interchangeably with the principle of stare decisis, requires that courtsrender decisions that are consistent with the previous decisions of higher courts.The rationale for the rule is self-evident: it promotes consistency, certainty andpredictability in the law, sound judicial administration, and enhances thelegitimacy and acceptability of the common law: David Polowin Real Estate Ltd.v. The Dominion of Canada General Insurance Co. (2005), 76 O.R. (3d) 161(C.A.), at paras. 119-120.[57] The coverage of the principle of stare decisis is captured in the dichotomybetween ratio decidendi and obiter dicta. As expressed in Halsbury’s Laws ofCanada, Civil Procedure I, 1st ed. (Markham: LexisNexis Canada, 2008), atp. 282:To employ the traditional terminology: only the ratiodecidendi of the prior court decision is binding on asubsequent court. The term ratio decidendi describesthe process of judicial reasoning that was necessary inorder for the court to reach a result on the issues thatwere presented to it for a decision. All other comments