In modern societies, there are considerable feats of compromise that need to occur if a democratic government is to exist and thrive. Although power ultimately resides in the people and their representatives, it is important that this power is not exercised in a way that is willful or arbitrary. In particular, a commitment to genuine democracy demands that the majority is not permitted to ride roughshod over minorities. Any mode of responsible government, therefore, needs to maintain a series of checks and balances so that the frequently diverse and occasionally contradictory interests of different groups are maintained in political equilibrium. Among other things, this means that both popular sovereignty and political accountability must be combined in a stable and effective compact of just governance.

It often falls to the law to map out a detailed way for the ship of state to negotiate these difficult seas. This is often an unenviable task that places the courts at the very center of various political storms. In the history of democratic governance, the judges have been thrust on to center stage and have been cast in the alternating roles of heroes and villains. Indeed, as societies become more fractured and governments become less tolerated, the courts are called on, for good and bad, to be the preferred venue of last resort. Less actors and more authors, they rewrite society's constitutional and institutional script as they follow it. A key notion at the heart of these engagements is the Rule of Law. On its fiftieth anniversary, a Canadian case points up the challenges and pitfalls to be faced in ensuring that this vital, if contested, principle of political democracy retains its relevance and bite.