Search

Recent reforms to Canada’s system of federal judicial appointments have sought to make the process more transparent and better able to produce a bench reflective of the society it serves. This paper reviews these reforms and using judicial appointment data (2016–2020), considers whether the Liberal government has met these objectives. The relationship between official bilingualism and representation on the bench is also considered. The paper finds that “diversity” on Canada’s federally appointed provincial courts remains unbalanced. While women have made up the majority of appointments since the Trudeau Liberals formed government in 2015, other equity-deserving groups, like people of colour and people with disabilities, have been appointed in numbers below their proportion of the Canadian population. Additionally, an analysis of the official language skillsets of judicial appointees offers tentative evidence that there may be challenges to fostering a judicial branch that is both representative and officially bilingual. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The number of nuisance and negligence tort claims in the US against “Big Oil” companies have grown significantly in the last five years. The Netherlands case of Milieudefensie et al v Royal Dutch Shell represents the first major success of such a claim internationally. While the US cases and Milieudefensie demonstrate starkly different approaches as to how to seek accountability from Big Oil for climate change harms, the increasing judicial engagement on these issues may mean the time is right for similar lawsuits in Canada. Three Canadian common law causes of action are examined: nuisance, negligence, and unjust enrichment. Defences and arguments which stem from society’s (and any potential plaintiff’s) acquiescence and authorization to allow the defendants’ conduct may present difficult barriers to success. This paper focuses on these types of defences, and argues that the responsibility of Big Oil for climate change harms should not be completely vitiated even if governments and plaintiffs have acquiesced, authorized, and arguably contributed to our climate crisis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The past few decades have seen an increase in culturally responsive policies and programs aimed at ameliorating the hardship and disadvantage faced by Indigenous peoples in the Canadian criminal justice system. These policies and programs, however, operate within a criminal justice system that consistently fails Indigenous peoples. What has yet to be tried is a nation-to-nation approach to criminal law jurisdiction where Indigenous peoples have legislative authority to enact and administer their own criminal laws. This paper shows that Indigenous jurisdiction over criminal law is possible within Canada’s constitutional framework. In Part I, I outline the current state of Indigenous self-government over criminal law. Although initiatives such as sentencing circles and Indigenous courts allow Indigenous peoples to exercise greater self-government over the administration of justice, they still do not exercise true criminal law-making authority. In Part II, I analyze existing discussions about separate Indigenous justice systems and identify a framework for how concurrent jurisdiction over criminal law can be exercised. In Part III, I draw on the doctrine of cooperative federalism to argue that Indigenous jurisdiction over criminal law can coexist with the federal government’s jurisdiction over criminal law. Lastly, in Part IV, I discuss four ways Indigenous nations can attain jurisdiction over criminal law: (1) a constitutional amendment; (2) a self-government agreement; (3) a claim under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982; and (4) federal legislation. While a constitutional amendment is the preferable solution, I argue that federal legislation informed by Indigenous peoples is the best alternative. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]