Search

Despite apparent agreement on the approach to the interpretation of statutes in Canada, a system of limited parliamentary sovereignty, judges differ on a fundamental point: how purpose is used in interpretation. Some judges craft arguments that view the text as the medium through which the legislature expresses its intention, using purpose to shed light on the meaning of the text in defined ways ('text-as-medium' interpretation). Others see the background purposes or values of the statutory context as binding constraints in a coherent legal order, with text as merely a signal to meaning ('purpose-as-medium' interpretation). This paper argues that text-as-medium interpretation offers the most persuasive account of the use of purpose in interpretation, especially in a system of legislative sovereignty, which constrains interpretive choice. By bringing to light the commitments of these two interpretive arguments in the Canadian context for the first time, the paper also raises deeper normative questions about how to view legislation in a Westminster parliamentary democracy. These questions are fundamental to the relationship between sovereign legislatures and courts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The majority of the literature focused on whether consent should be extended to the adolescent population arises from themes adapted from American tort law. In contrast to the USA, Ontario does not delineate an age of consent for medical treatment and relying on American guidelines to guide practice in Ontario is problematic. While the literature is saturated with discussions for and against seeking adolescent consent, there are currently no bioethical guidelines on adolescent consent in the province of Ontario. This paper explores adolescent refusal of care and adolescent request for care in opposition to parental wishes. The paper seeks to answer the following questions: What is the difference between an adolescent and an adult in medical decision-making? What are the barriers to seeking adolescent consent? And, can the neurobiological argument be an accurate guide for obtaining adolescent consent? [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As both a marriage act and an immigration act, the Expatriation Act of 1907 restricted U.S. women's freedom of marriage by stating that marrying aliens would lead to loss of U.S. citizenship. To study the effects of the Expatriation Act, I conduct a statistical analysis using 1910 full-count U.S. census data. I find that the Expatriation Act of 1907 generated significantly negative effects on intermarriage between American women and foreign-born men, particularly noncitizens. In particular, I find that it was the citizenship, rather than men's non-U.S. origin, that accounted for the negative effects of the Expatriation Act of 1907 on intermarriage. These results show a decline in male immigrants' marital assimilation, and potentially social and economic assimilation. As for the magnitude, the effects were large: the decline in intermarriage was at least 15 percent relative to the pre-Act intermarriage rate. Besides these main results, selective emigration to Canada and Europe driven by intermarriage cannot explain the main empirical results of the paper. The Expatriation Act of 1907 also had no significant effects on women's entry into the marriage market. Finally, the effects of the Expatriation Act of 1907 on intermarriage were heterogeneous by family immigration background, but less so by geographic region. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]