Jane Scharf has update the research on the Grand Jury to include an new Supreme Court Decision Alford vs attoney General of Canada 2026:

 

LINK HERE: https://docs.google.com/document/d/15s8vFPVkFBP1TUMM7zZ55jPuslTRlL3Zk3ugzCJ76Wc/edit?usp=sharing

 

HOW ALFORD v. CANADA (ATTORNEY GENERAL), 2026 SCC 14 SUPPORTS THE GRAND JURY

 

The recent Supreme Court of Canada decision in Alford v. Canada (Attorney General) is highly significant for those arguing that the grand jury remains constitutionally possible within Canada’s legal system.

 

Although the case itself dealt with parliamentary privilege and the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians Act, the Supreme Court reaffirmed several foundational constitutional principles that indirectly support the continued constitutional validity of historic common law institutions such as the grand jury. ()

The Court confirmed that Canada’s Constitution protects foundational constitutional structures, historic parliamentary functions, and inherited constitutional principles that form part of Canada’s constitutional order. The Court emphasized that Parliament cannot fundamentally alter or undermine core constitutional functions simply through ordinary legislation. ()

 

This principle is important because the grand jury historically formed part of the inherited British constitutional and common law system upon which Canada was founded.

 

Historically, grand juries existed as independent citizen bodies that:
• investigated allegations of serious wrongdoing,
• examined abuses of public authority,
• protected citizens from arbitrary prosecutions,
• and acted as a constitutional buffer between the people and the state.

Grand juries were part of the traditional constitutional machinery inherited from Britain and existed throughout early Canadian legal history before being gradually removed through statutory changes rather than through constitutional amendment.

The significance of Alford is that the Supreme Court acknowledged that constitutional structures cannot simply be erased by ordinary governmental preference if those structures form part of the foundational constitutional order itself. ()

The Court also reaffirmed that constitutional powers must remain consistent with the role and purpose of the institution being exercised. ()

 

This reasoning supports the broader argument that historic constitutional safeguards rooted in common law — including citizen oversight mechanisms such as the grand jury — remain constitutionally relevant unless lawfully and constitutionally extinguished.

 

The decision further reinforces the principle that Canada’s Constitution is not limited only to written statutes such as the Charter. Rather, Canada’s constitutional order also includes:
• inherited constitutional conventions,
• parliamentary traditions,
• common law principles,
• historic constitutional structures,
• and unwritten constitutional doctrines.

 

This aligns directly with earlier Supreme Court authorities recognizing that Canada’s Constitution includes unwritten constitutional principles flowing from the preamble to the Constitution Act, 1867 and the inherited constitutional traditions of the United Kingdom.

 

The Alford ruling therefore strengthens the legal and constitutional argument that the grand jury was not merely a procedural tool created by statute, but part of a deeper constitutional tradition connected to:
• common law liberty,
• citizen participation in justice,
• limits on arbitrary state power,
• and public accountability.

 

Importantly, the Court stated that constitutional institutions cannot be fundamentally altered in a manner inconsistent with their constitutional role. ()

Supporters of grand jury restoration argue that the complete elimination of citizen-led accusatory oversight mechanisms has contributed to the concentration of power within administrative, prosecutorial, and institutional systems without meaningful independent citizen review.

 

Under this interpretation, Alford supports the position that constitutional structures inherited through common law remain legally significant and cannot simply disappear through political convenience or administrative modernization alone.

 

The case therefore provides modern Supreme Court recognition that:
• inherited constitutional structures matter,
• common law constitutional principles continue to exist,
• constitutional functions cannot be casually extinguished,
• and Canada’s constitutional order extends beyond purely written constitutional text.

 

For proponents of restoring grand juries in Canada, Alford represents an important modern affirmation that foundational constitutional institutions rooted in historic common law continue to carry constitutional significance today.