Editing Supreme Court of Canada (section)

===Constitutional interpretation===
[[File:Supreme Court Judges. Ottawa, Ontario - LAC 4301941.jpg|thumb|The justices of the Supreme Court of Canada in 1961]]
The Supreme Court thus performs a unique function. It can be asked by the Governor-in-Council to hear references considering important questions of law. Such referrals may concern the constitutionality or interpretation of federal or provincial legislation, or the [[Provinces and territories of Canada|division of powers]] between federal and provincial spheres of government. Any point of law may be referred in this manner. However, the Court is not often called upon to hear references. References have been used to re-examine criminal convictions that have concerned the country as in the cases of [[David Milgaard]] and [[Steven Truscott]].

The Supreme Court has the ultimate power of [[judicial review]] over Canadian federal and provincial laws' constitutional validity. If a federal or provincial law has been held contrary to the division of power provisions of one of the various constitution acts, the legislature or parliament must either live with the result, amend the law so that it complies, or obtain an amendment to the constitution. If a law is declared contrary to certain sections of the ''Charter of Rights and Freedoms'', Parliament or the provincial legislatures may make that particular law temporarily valid again against by using the "override power" of the [[Section Thirty-three of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms|notwithstanding clause]]. In one case, the [[Quebec National Assembly]] invoked this power to override a Supreme Court decision (''[[Ford v Quebec (AG)]]'') that held that one of Quebec's language laws banning the display of English commercial signs was inconsistent with the ''Charter''. Saskatchewan has also used it to uphold its labour laws. This override power can be exercised for five years, after which time the override must be renewed or the decision comes into force.

In some cases, the court may stay the effect of its judgments so that unconstitutional laws continue in force for a period of time. Usually, this is done to give Parliament or a legislature sufficient time to enact a new replacement scheme of legislation. For example, in ''[[Reference Re Manitoba Language Rights]]'', the court struck down Manitoba's laws because they were not enacted in the French language, as required by the Constitution. However, the Court stayed its judgment for five years to give Manitoba time to re-enact all its legislation in French. It turned out five years was insufficient so the court was asked, and agreed, to give more time.

Constitutional questions may, of course, also be raised in the normal case of appeals involving individual litigants, governments, government agencies or [[Crown corporation]]s. In such cases the federal and provincial governments must be notified of any constitutional questions and may [[intervention (law)|intervene]] to submit a [[brief (law)|brief]] and attend [[oral argument]] at the court. Usually the other governments are given the right to argue their case in the court, although on rare occasions this has been curtailed and prevented by order of one of the court's judges.