Final answer:
The Supreme Court of Canada's three-issue analysis for contract law is debated for potentially adding uncertainty, balancing the strict terms against the broader context. It implicates considerations of the balance of power between government branches and judging processes, such as lifetime tenure for justices.
Step-by-step explanation:
The Supreme Court of Canada's approach to contract law involves a three-issue analysis, which assesses not only the wording of the contract but also the broader context in which the agreement was made. This method is sometimes criticized for injecting uncertainty into contract law as it takes into consideration various subjective factors which may differ from case to case. It raises a legitimate question as to whether parties should be strictly bound by the clauses they have agreed to, or if there should be room to adjust those clauses based on context and fairness.
Advocates of a strict adherence to contractual clauses argue it upholds the principle of autonomy and certainty in business dealings. However, opponents suggest that a more contextual approach is necessary to prevent injustice and to reflect the true intentions of the contracting parties.
The balance of power between the branches of government can be influenced by how the Supreme Court interprets laws, including the commerce clause. Broad interpretations may increase the Court's influence over legislative and executive actions. Critics often express concerns about this power, fearing potential overreach and a shift in the intended balance created by the Constitution. The discussion also ties into whether lifetime tenure for federal judges and Supreme Court justices is beneficial, with arguments for independence and against the potential for stagnation or detachment from current societal values.