Search

Copyright of Canadian Journal of Sociology is the property of Canadian Journal of Sociology and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This paper demonstrates that an important and overlooked guide to understanding Canadian and US Supreme Court decision making in tax cases is the "default," or the party to whom the court will decide in favour of if tax language is ambiguous. While statutory interpretation methods influence the overall manner in which courts approach tax-law decision making, the default is a more concrete guide to evaluating Canadian and US Supreme Court decisions. The paper first explores the statutory interpretation approaches referenced in Canadian and American Supreme Court tax law cases. The paper then examines the histories of defaults, including the cases in which they emerged and the rationales given for their adoption. Third, based on original research, the paper concludes that defaults have a profound effect on income tax decisions by, in Canada, the Supreme Court favouring the taxpayer and, in the United States, the Court deferring to the Internal Revenue Service. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

US and Canadian approaches to tribal legal orders have taken different paths, and here I argue that the Canadian model should move towards free-standing Indigenous courts as they currently exist in the United States. The Canadian approach has focussed on the issue of over-incarceration of Indigenous prisoners, but even newer efforts have stopped short of recognising at least partial criminal and civil jurisdiction. The Canadian approach fails to support Indigenous jurisdiction and community rebuilding and leaves Indigenous peoples vulnerable to non-Indigenous judges, who fail to accommodate Indigenous approaches to justice. Early attempts at shared jurisdiction have been naïve regarding Indigenous internal social processes and the struggle over what constitutes proper cultural practices. My data come from my own work with Coast Salish tribes, where I have studied tribal histories and legal practices on both sides of the international border as well their views of federal policy in both Canada and the United States. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Climate change-related disputes, which often include novel, complex, or politically sensitive matters, have experienced a mixed reception by the courts. Defendants both in Canada and the United States have raised the issue of justiciability-- the question of whether a matter is of the quality or state of being appropriate or suitable for review by a court--with some success in attempts to have these cases summarily dismissed. The author reviews the types of climate change cases that have been launched, examines the US and Canadian laws of justiciability, analyzes the paths in which the caselaw regarding justiciability in these countries is headed, and suggests how these developments will impact future climate change cases. This paper finds that Canadian courts may be increasingly using justiciability as a means to avoid addressing climate change issues--just as US courts may be beginning to take a more progressive approach. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents a comparative analysis of existing law in the U.S. and Canada regarding prostitution and the right to privacy. It analyzes how the right to privacy has been used to challenge existing prostitution laws in Canada and the responses of courts in this regard. It reflects on privacy interests included in the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution which regulates prostitution as not a private act.