The Anti‐Inflation case: the anatomy of a constitutional decision

. The Supreme Court's decision upholding the Anti‐Inflation Act may have been the Court's most important decision since becoming Canada's final Court of Appeal. While the federal government's wage and price control policy escaped a judicial veto, the Court's decision gave that policy only a temporary constitutional mandate. In so doing, the Court laid to rest, for the time being, any possibility that the national peace, order and good government power was to be dramatically expanded, but opened up the possibility of fairly easy access to the emergency use of the power in peacetime. By examining this decision in the context of the political and legal strategies of the parties, we may gain some valuable insights into the nature of judicial review in Canada. Among other things the case demonstrates the limited importance of judicial review in the politics of Canadian federalism. The Court's decision signals that a constitutional revolution is not about to occur, but the decision itself is not the major factor in preventing a centralizing shift in the balance of power. In fact the Supreme Court's decision reflects fairly accurately the balance of political power in the country. But while the case reveals how political the process of judicial review can be in Canada, still the end product of the process—the opinions of the judges—continues to be cast in a relatively legalistic' style. The Court may adjudicate constitutional disputes but it is not about to dispense constitutional wisdom. The case also teaches us something about the relative importance of economic and judicial resources in the political process. The main lesson is clear: bodi politicians and interest groups will risk losses in terms of long‐run constitutional doctrine in order to secure important short‐run policy objectives.