The author argues that the Court Challenges Program‘s 2006 cancellation was based on claims that judicial review is undemocratic, including those made by three academics, Rainer Knopff, F.L. Morton and Ian Brodie, the Court Party Theorists (the "CPT"). Through a study of Charter equality cases, this paper examines the CPT‘s arguments regarding judicial activism, interest groups and interveners and finds they are largely unsupported by statistical evidence. Further, the debate about judicial review and democracy obscures judicial review‘s important auditing function over the legislature‘s constitutional adherence. This audit depends on individuals‘ capacity to pursue Charter litigation, an ability compromised by the access to justice crisis. The author examines this crisis and the efforts to fill the funding gap left by the CCP‘s cancellation and concludes that an accessible publicly-funded program like the CCP is best-placed to ensure that the Charter remains a relevant tool for enforcing fundamental human rights in Canada.