# Judicial opinions of Marshall Rothstein
Marshall Rothstein served as a judge of the [Supreme Court of Canada](https://www.edgepedia.org/supreme-court-of-canada) from March 1, 2006 until August 30, 2015,[1](https://scc-csc.ca/about-apropos/judges-juges/list-liste/marshall-rothstein/) and his written reasons from that period form the subject of this article. He arrived at the Court already known in the tax bar as a specialist, having written 324 judgments over six years on the Federal Court of Appeal, well over one quarter of them tax matters.[2](https://works.bepress.com/kim-brooks/32/download) On the Supreme Court he became, in the tax bar's view, the Court's tax judge, a regular author in copyright dockets, and his criminal law votes included dissents against rights-expanding majorities and positions upholding police powers grounded in reasonable suspicion.[2](https://works.bepress.com/kim-brooks/32/download) • [4](https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/6-rulings-that-point-to-justice-marshall-rothstein-s-thinking/article_8aa65c32-8ec3-5145-a9e0-6e28fda8edd6.html) • [6](https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/4627/index.do?q=%5B2007%5D+1+R.C.S.+429&site_preference=mobile)
| Key fact | Detail |
|---|---|
| Tenure | Supreme Court of Canada, March 1, 2006 to August 30, 2015[1](https://scc-csc.ca/about-apropos/judges-juges/list-liste/marshall-rothstein/) |
| Tax output | 24 tax cases, 12 majority judgments, 2 dissents[2](https://works.bepress.com/kim-brooks/32/download) |
| Defining copyright work | Participation in the 2012 Copyright Pentalogy, plus majority reasons in Rogers v SOCAN, dissenting reasons in ESA v SOCAN and Alberta (Education) v Access Copyright[3](https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/ip-osgoode-videos/2) • [11](https://www.scc-csc.ca/cases-dossiers/search-recherche/33921/) • [12](https://www.scc-csc.ca/cases-dossiers/search-recherche/33888/) |
| Signature unanimous reasons | Whatcott (2013), defining hate speech for a 6-0 court[4](https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/6-rulings-that-point-to-justice-marshall-rothstein-s-thinking/article_8aa65c32-8ec3-5145-a9e0-6e28fda8edd6.html) |
| Recurring dissent areas | Mandatory minimums (Nur), right to strike (Saskatchewan Federation of Labour), RCMP unionization, sniffer-dog powers (Kang-Brown)[4](https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/6-rulings-that-point-to-justice-marshall-rothstein-s-thinking/article_8aa65c32-8ec3-5145-a9e0-6e28fda8edd6.html) • [5](https://www.ourwindsor.ca/news/marshall-rothstein-muses-on-nine-years-in-canada-s-supreme-court/article_78fadbed-d77e-53bb-a471-e81aeac9d18b.html) • [6](https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/4627/index.do?q=%5B2007%5D+1+R.C.S.+429&site_preference=mobile) |
| Method | Formalist, text-driven statutory interpretation in the Iacobucci tradition[2](https://works.bepress.com/kim-brooks/32/download) |
| Scholarly framing | "Judicious restraint," including Lorne Sossin's chapter on his "prudent vision" of administrative law humility[7](https://store.lexisnexis.com/fr-ca/products/judicious-restraint-the-life-and-law-of-justice-marshall-e-rothstein.html) |
## Tax jurisprudence: the Court's tax judge
Rothstein's tax docket is the best-documented measure of his influence. Over his tenure he sat on 24 tax cases at the Supreme Court, writing the majority judgment in 12 and dissents in two; scholars recording these numbers note that the tax bar regarded him as the Supreme Court's tax judge.[2](https://works.bepress.com/kim-brooks/32/download)
Scholars characterize his tax method as a continuation of the formalism associated with Justice Frank Iacobucci: decisions derived from the text of the legislation rather than from policy consequences.[2](https://works.bepress.com/kim-brooks/32/download) In practice this meant careful statutory construction, attention to the ordinary meaning of provisions of the Income Tax Act, and reluctance to reshape tax outcomes on purposive or economic-substance reasoning.
## Intellectual property and copyright
Rothstein sat on the five 2012 copyright cases known as the Copyright Pentalogy and later discussed them in a public presentation at [Osgoode Hall](https://www.edgepedia.org/osgoode-hall) on advocacy in IP litigation before the Supreme Court.[3](https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/ip-osgoode-videos/2)
## Criminal law, police powers and Charter cases
Rothstein's police-powers jurisprudence is defined by the drug-detector-dog line of cases. In R. v. Kang-Brown (2008), a nine-judge panel divided, with Bastarache, Deschamps, and Rothstein JJ dissenting; Deschamps J wrote, with Rothstein J concurring, that the police possess a common law power to search using drug sniffer dogs on a Charter-compliant standard of reasonable suspicion.[6](https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/4627/index.do?q=%5B2007%5D+1+R.C.S.+429&site_preference=mobile) The position lost in 2008 but prevailed five years later. In R. v. Chehil (2013 SCC 49), with Rothstein on the panel, a unanimous Court held that a sniffer-dog search may proceed without prior judicial authorization where police have reasonable suspicion based on objective, ascertainable facts, and that properly conducted sniff searches of this kind are Charter-compliant given their minimally intrusive, narrowly targeted, and highly accurate nature.[8](https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/13264/index.do?alternatelocale=en&iframe=true&pedisable=false&q=metis&site_preference=normal) His 2008 dissent thus became the settled law on warrantless sniffer-dog searches by 2013.[8](https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/13264/index.do?alternatelocale=en&iframe=true&pedisable=false&q=metis&site_preference=normal)
On the rights-expanding side of the docket he was regularly in dissent. In R. v. Nur (2015) he dissented from a 6-3 majority that struck down mandatory minimum sentences for a minor firearms offense, writing that the majority's reasoning was "not grounded in common sense."[4](https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/6-rulings-that-point-to-justice-marshall-rothstein-s-thinking/article_8aa65c32-8ec3-5145-a9e0-6e28fda8edd6.html) In January 2015 he dissented again when the Court ruled 6-1 that RCMP members have a right to unionize under the Charter's guarantee of freedom of association.[4](https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/6-rulings-that-point-to-justice-marshall-rothstein-s-thinking/article_8aa65c32-8ec3-5145-a9e0-6e28fda8edd6.html) He was not invariably with the state, however: he signed onto [Carter v Canada](https://www.edgepedia.org/carter-v-canada-ag) (Attorney General), the unanimous 9-0 ruling that reversed the Court's 1993 decision in the Sue Rodriguez case and paved the way for legalized medical assistance in dying.[4](https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/6-rulings-that-point-to-justice-marshall-rothstein-s-thinking/article_8aa65c32-8ec3-5145-a9e0-6e28fda8edd6.html)
## Notable majorities: Whatcott and Manitoba Metis
Rothstein's most cited single set of reasons is likely [Saskatchewan](https://www.edgepedia.org/saskatchewan) (Human Rights Commission) v Whatcott, 2013 SCC 11, [2013] 1 SCR 467, dealing with hate speech under section 2(b) of the Charter.[9](https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2013/2013scc11/2013scc11.html) Writing for a unanimous 6-0 court in February 2013, he narrowed and upheld a Saskatchewan human rights code provision against hate speech and the fines imposed on pamphleteer William Whatcott, defining the core of the prohibited category: "Hate speech is, at its core, an effort to marginalize individuals based on their membership in a group."[4](https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/6-rulings-that-point-to-justice-marshall-rothstein-s-thinking/article_8aa65c32-8ec3-5145-a9e0-6e28fda8edd6.html)
The same term he took the other side of a high-profile rights case. In Manitoba Metis Federation Inc v Canada (Attorney General), 2013 SCC 14, Rothstein J joined Moldaver J in a dissenting opinion separate from the majority led by McLachlin C.J.[10](https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2013/2013scc14/2013scc14.html)
## By the numbers: volume, dissents and comparisons
Two patterns stand out. He frequently sat on unanimous panels (9 of 14 opinions in 2010), and his dissents clustered in identifiable areas: police powers, mandatory minimum sentencing, labor rights, and Indigenous claims against the federal government, as illustrated by Kang-Brown,[6](https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/4627/index.do?q=%5B2007%5D+1+R.C.S.+429&site_preference=mobile) Nur,[4](https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/6-rulings-that-point-to-justice-marshall-rothstein-s-thinking/article_8aa65c32-8ec3-5145-a9e0-6e28fda8edd6.html) and Manitoba Metis.[10](https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2013/2013scc14/2013scc14.html)
## Restraint, formalism and scholarly debate
The scholarly frame placed on his legacy is judicial restraint. A [LexisNexis](https://www.edgepedia.org/lexisnexis) collection, Judicious Restraint: The Life and Law of Justice Marshall E. Rothstein, includes Lorne Sossin's chapter "The Humility of Administrative Law: Marshall Rothstein's Prudent Vision" and a chapter by Michael Fenrick, Jodi Martin, and Daniel Rosenbluth reflecting on his administrative law jurisprudence in an age of deference.[7](https://store.lexisnexis.com/fr-ca/products/judicious-restraint-the-life-and-law-of-justice-marshall-e-rothstein.html) That framing matches the pattern visible in his own reasons: in his Saskatchewan Federation of Labour dissent on a constitutional right to strike, where the majority struck down a law declaring public workers essential and barring them from withdrawing services, he wrote bluntly that the court was "wrong" and had interfered with "the proper role" of the legislature.[5](https://www.ourwindsor.ca/news/marshall-rothstein-muses-on-nine-years-in-canada-s-supreme-court/article_78fadbed-d77e-53bb-a471-e81aeac9d18b.html)
The open debate is whether this legislature-deferring instinct amounts to principled humility or excessive deference. His formalist tax method[2](https://works.bepress.com/kim-brooks/32/download) and his dissents against rights-expanding majorities in Nur and the RCMP case[4](https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/6-rulings-that-point-to-justice-marshall-rothstein-s-thinking/article_8aa65c32-8ec3-5145-a9e0-6e28fda8edd6.html) point the same direction: text and enacted law control, and courts should be slow to add to them. The counterexamples, Whatcott's speech-restricting but charter-conscious majority[4](https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/6-rulings-that-point-to-justice-marshall-rothstein-s-thinking/article_8aa65c32-8ec3-5145-a9e0-6e28fda8edd6.html) and his signature on Carter,[4](https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/6-rulings-that-point-to-justice-marshall-rothstein-s-thinking/article_8aa65c32-8ec3-5145-a9e0-6e28fda8edd6.html) show the label does not fully capture his Charter work.
## References
1. Supreme Court of Canada, The Honourable Marshall Rothstein. https://scc-csc.ca/about-apropos/judges-juges/list-liste/marshall-rothstein/
2. "Carrying on the Tradition: Justice Rothstein's Contribution to Canadian Tax Law," Supreme Court Law Review. https://works.bepress.com/kim-brooks/32/download
3. Advocacy in IP Litigation in the Supreme Court: a Presentation by Justice Marshall Rothstein, Osgoode Hall. https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/ip-osgoode-videos/2
4. "6 rulings that point to Justice Marshall Rothstein's thinking," Toronto Star. https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/6-rulings-that-point-to-justice-marshall-rothstein-s-thinking/article_8aa65c32-8ec3-5145-a9e0-6e28fda8edd6.html
5. "Marshall Rothstein muses on nine years in Canada's Supreme Court," Metroland/OurWindsor. https://www.ourwindsor.ca/news/marshall-rothstein-muses-on-nine-years-in-canada-s-supreme-court/article_78fadbed-d77e-53bb-a471-e81aeac9d18b.html
6. R. v. Kang-Brown, [2008] 1 SCR 456, 2008 SCC 18, Supreme Court of Canada decisions database. https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/4627/index.do?q=%5B2007%5D+1+R.C.S.+429&site_preference=mobile
7. Judicious Restraint: The Life and Law of Justice Marshall E. Rothstein, LexisNexis Canada. https://store.lexisnexis.com/fr-ca/products/judicious-restraint-the-life-and-law-of-justice-marshall-e-rothstein.html
8. R. v. Chehil, 2013 SCC 49, [2013] 3 SCR 220, Supreme Court of Canada decisions database. https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/13264/index.do?alternatelocale=en&iframe=true&pedisable=false&q=metis&site_preference=normal
9. Saskatchewan (Human Rights Commission) v. Whatcott, 2013 SCC 11 (CanLII), [2013] 1 SCR 467. https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2013/2013scc11/2013scc11.html
10. Manitoba Metis Federation Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), 2013 SCC 14 (CanLII), [2013] 1 SCR 623. https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2013/2013scc14/2013scc14.html
11. Supreme Court of Canada, 33921, https://www.scc-csc.ca/cases-dossiers/search-recherche/33921/
12. Supreme Court of Canada, 33888, https://www.scc-csc.ca/cases-dossiers/search-recherche/33888/
---
*Topic: Encyclopedia › Society and history › Law and justice › Courts and legal practice › Courts and justice institutions › National judiciaries and supreme courts worldwide › Supreme Court of Canada › Supreme Court of Canada reasons series › Reasons by Justice Rothstein*
*Initially written Sep 17, 2026 · Reviewed: Sep 30, 2026 · Edited: Sep 30, 2026; Oct 15, 2026; Oct 21, 2026; Oct 25, 2026 · Last review: Sep 30, 2026*
*Copyright 2026 EdgeChat AI, a subsidiary of Biostate AI.*
License: Edgepedia Community License 1.0, https://www.edgepedia.org/edgepedia/license