Search

This article offers a theoretical and doctrinal solution to a vexing question in public law: how to determine the justifiability of Charter rights-limiting administrative decisions. The jurisprudence suggests three approaches, or modes of reasoning: minimal impairment analysis, 'interest balancing', and 'values-advancing reasoning'. Like Cerberus, the guard dog of Hades, Canadian public law has become three-headed. While scholars and courts argue about which mode of reasoning is categorically best, the culture of justification compels us to ask instead which provides the most compelling explanation for each rights-limiting decision. Just as cutting off one of Cerberus's heads would diminish his effectiveness as a guard dog, rejecting either of the modes of reasoning would limit decision makers' capacity to explain their decisions and undermine a culture of justification. The article makes a theoretical case for retaining all three modes of reasoning and sets out a doctrinal approach to determining when each is applicable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Supreme Court of Canada concluded in its 2012 judgment in Doré that the rational connection test and the less restrictive means inquiry from the Oakes analysis are not useful when assessing the justifiability of administrative decisions limiting Charter rights. The Court instead articulated a 'robust' conception of proportionality that requires administrative decision makers to demonstrate only that any rights limitations that their decisions impose are proportionate 'in the strict sense.' This article argues that Charter values should be understood as part of a normative hierarchy of 'justificatory resources' to which administrative decision makers can refer in justifying rights-limiting decisions as proportionate in the strict sense. It argues further that the robust, reasons-first conception of reasonableness that the Court described in Vavilov affirms Doré's logical architecture, marking a shift in Canadian jurisprudence toward a 'culture of justification.' In adopting the same approach to constitutional decisions affecting Charter rights and administrative decisions that do not engage the Charter, Doré and Vavilov construct a unified model of public law in which all public decisions must be shown to be justified by their congruence with a hierarchy of norms which has Charter values at its apex. In this unified model of public law, in which a robust conception of reasonableness is central, it is not clear what room, or need, is left for correctness review. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This is a case comment on the three aspects of the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in the References re Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act which are relevant to the administrative state: the constitutional limits on delegation; judicial review of regulations made under the POGG power; and the distinction between a regulatory charge and a tax. Through its analysis of these aspects, the decision in the References sets out high-level principles about the delegation of authority to Canada's administrative state. On two of these aspects -- constitutional limits on delegation and judicial review of regulations -- there was disagreement between the majority and dissenting judges. These disagreements highlight the importance of the decision to the administrative state and careful consideration of the dissenting judges' observations helps to supplement the majority's analysis. Ultimately, I suggest, the majority got the References right on the aspects relating to the administrative state, but that the dissenting judges' cogent concerns deserve to be taken seriously. When the decision is read alongside recent developments in American public law, its significance becomes even clearer. For some years now, America's administrative state has been under attack, on the basis that it is an unlawful deviation from the constitutional standards created by the founders. It is not fanciful to expect that in the years to come, the Supreme Court of the United States will rein in America's administrative state. Such changes are singularly unlikely in Canada, as the References demonstrate, even though the course of American administrative law has often influenced Canadian developments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Applications for interlocutory stays of legislation in Charter challenges raise difficult issues about the limits of judicial power in a democratic society. Accordingly, the interlocutory injunction analysis in Charter challenges raises what are quintessential issues of public law. Nevertheless, courts in Quebec and the rest of Canada apply what is -- in origin and essence -- a private law framework. This paper argues that a key reason for the current inaccessibility of interlocutory Charter stays is that the conceptual tools of the private law do not provide a way to appropriately balance deference to democratically-elected legislatures with the promise of appropriate and just Charter remedies. The main existing proposal for improving the courts' approach, adding review of the merits to the model, provides an incomplete solution to this problem. Thus, in place of the existing alternative approach, this paper argues that a public law model inspired by sections 1 and 24(1) can provide a more successful framework. Throughout, four recent interlocutory judgments in Quebec are used as a focal point to explore both the present approach and the proposed alternative. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article considers the future of judicial analytics, its possible effects for the public, the judiciary and the legal profession, and potential responses to the rise of judicial analytics in Canada. Judicial analytics involves the use of advanced technologies, like machine learning and natural language processing, to quickly analyze publicly-available data about judges and judicial decision-making. While, in Canada, judicial analytics tools are as yet at the early stages of development and use, such tools are likely to become more powerful, more accurate and more accessible in the near-to-medium future, resulting in unprecedented public insight into judges and the work of judging. This article identifies benefits of mainstreamed judicial analytics, including increased transparency into the work of judging, and risks flowing from the rise of judicial analytics, including the propagation of inaccurate or misleading information about judges. In light of these benefits and risks, the article identifies voluntary third-party certification and the production of credible public tools as meaningful responses to the rise of judicial analytics and calls on judicial regulators to consider how information made available through judicial analytics tools may influence their work. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article is a critical evaluation of Canadian criminal law casebooks. The author explores the aims, practices, and challenges of these teaching texts by examining their relationship to critique-inspired pedagogical methods. A number of English-language Canadian criminal law casebooks add a welcome feature to the Canadian common law teaching landscape: all but one of six recently published casebooks teach doctrine and critique together. The research builds on an emerging scholarship of Canadian legal education by demonstrating evidence of critical political commitments and critique-inspired teaching methods within Canadian criminal law education. Yet casebook editors and other professors who utilize critical methods acknowledge challenges of teaching doctrine from critical standpoints. These discoveries lead the author to suggest that emphasizing the goals of teaching critique, including producing more effective lawyers and creating learning environments that value student diversity, will be helpful for moving forward with critique-inspired teaching. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In planning matters, human rights challenges are increasing, so planning scholars and practitioners must understand the issues and find ways to address them. In this Viewpoint I argue that the Canadian state, through constitutional and quasi-constitutional protections as well as its active judiciary, has strengthened the rights of Canadians to tackle issues at the city level. Nonetheless, the pursuit of these rights is ongoing, especially regarding issues of access to housing, universal accessibility to public services, and freedoms of expression and religion. Educating practicing and budding planners, and the public, about the implications of human rights on planning is a key way forward. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

It is widely assumed that laws governing dairy production include substantial protection of animals' interests--that in some way the state is regulating the treatment of farmed animals and protecting them against the worst excesses of their owners' selfinterest. In fact, across jurisdictions in Canada and the United States, the standards governing farmed animal protection are not established by elected lawmakers or appointed regulators, but are instead primarily defined by private, interested parties, including producers themselves. As scholars of animal law have noted, this has contributed to weak and ineffectual legal protection of the interests of farmed animals. The present study will focus on a distinct, though related, difficulty arising from the de facto or de jure delegation of standard-setting authority to animal industries. Not only does this delegation result in less stringent standards, but it also works to erode crucial public law values, such as transparency, accountability and impartiality. This limitation of public law values poses a deep structural threat to animal interests, especially in light of animals' particular dependence on public law for their protection. Animals are excluded from private law protections, and from direct access to conventional means of legal and political participation, leaving them without legal avenues to press their interests as individuals. Effective animal protection therefore requires that the human beings who advocate for animal interests have meaningful access to standard-setting processes. Such meaningful access is facilitated where public law values assure transparent, accountable and impartial decisionmaking. For this reason, the assignment of standard-setting authority to private producers, and the attendant diminution of public law values, is of special concern in the animal protection context. This article will chart the operation of private power in setting standards for the protection of dairy cattle and identify the damage this privatized authority does to public law values. The article will tentatively suggest in conclusion that high levels of privatization in standard-setting may reflect a public desire to be comforted by the idea of regulation, tempered by an underlying ambivalence respecting the practical consequences of meaningful legal oversight. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article explores the emerging use of the proportionality concept in the contract law of the Anglo-common law world, first to understand its internal logic, and secondly, to situate its invocation within private law theory. What are judges doing when they appeal to "proportionality"?, and what does this say about the ideology of adjudication? I draw insights from the use of proportionality in other domains, in particular public law, to uncover its internal rationality as a means-ends rationality review coupled with a process of balancing competing considerations, which I illustrate with reference to the illegality, penalty, and cost of cure doctrines. I argue that proportionality reflects a method of pragmatic justification, expressing an aspiration towards a structured and transparent mode of argumentation that is anti-formal and anti-ideological, focusing from the bottom-up on contextual considerations, and occupying a distinct space against existing theories in private law driven, for instance, by "top-down"? rights-based ideologies or critical and communitarian perspectives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article interrogates reasons for decision, a central concept in Canadian public law scholarship. Using spatiotemporal scale as an analytical tool, it shows how unified reasons may be more easily recognized at the scale of judicially reviewable administrative decisions common to public law scholarship, yet elusive at the scale of front-line decision making. It then investigates how a variety of mechanisms, including data entries and notes, function together behind the front lines of social assistance agencies in the province of Ontario. Drawing on qualitative research into caseworkers' decision-making practices, this article illustrates how the 'reasons' for a particular administrative decision may be multiplied and fractured across software programs, emails, and physical case files. Further, it demonstrates how notes are both more and less than reasons. As they perform three internal communicative tasks central to administrative governance – recording evidence, explaining decisions, and justifying potentially contentious outcomes to other administrative insiders – notes facilitate decision-making practices that ensure institutionally acceptable outcomes are reached, even as one note may not fully capture the logic underlying a particular decision. Ultimately, this article aims to motivate theoretically inclined legal scholars to reconsider the concept of reasons for decision in light of the decision-making practices of front-line administrators. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Canadian public law recognises the writ of habeas corpus as an essential remedy against unlawful detention. Apart from the applications for the release of persons unlawfully incarcerated, there are applications of the writ that illustrate its use to release persons from particular form of detention although the person will lawfully remain under some other restraint of liberty. South African courts like their Canadian counterparts uphold the inherent right of every subject, and in every stranger in the country to issue out a writ of habeas corpus. This right is given not only by the English common law, but also by the South African Roman-Dutch equivalent – interdictum de libero homine exhibendo. However, a close scrutiny of at least one of such decisions proceeding from the lower to the highest court in the country reveals a disconnect in the judicial pronouncements on the link between actio popularis and interdictum de libero homine exhibendo; and the distinction between a bail application and interdictum de libero homine exhibendo. The level of consistency enjoyed by the Canadian courts decisions have not been attained in South Africa. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The potential of trusteeship theory and related fiduciary duties in resolving environmental problems first emerged in the 1970s. Trusteeship theory suggests a governance model that would allow the State to adopt a holistic approach to nature management and to consider future generations ' interests. The theory is of particular interest to researchers in Canada, as it draws on concepts that already exist in Canadian public law, and therefore might allow for a rapid paradigm shift in environmental governance. It nevertheless remains necessary to define the substance and nature of the fiduciary duties that this shift implies for the public sector. This Essay brings to light aspects of Canadian jurisprudence in the environmental domain that imposes duties of environmental protection on the government and sets out a path for advancing the trusteeship theory to address the mounting ecological challenges of the Anthropocene. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

After initial optimism, damages have become a disappointing remedy for human rights violations in Canada, New Zealand, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Part I of this article relates this disappointment to the modest nature of most awards and the continued impact of qualified and absolute immunities. Part II argues that the answer is not, as some have suggested, to return to tort principles but, rather, to look to public law principles, including international law principles of state responsibility. This allows damages to be placed in the perspective of the state's obligations to comply with human rights and the availability of alternative and sometimes stronger remedies. A public law approach also allows principles of proportionality to discipline and structure the exercise of remedial discretion. Part III situates damages within a two-track approach to remedies in both domestic and supranational law. Under this approach, courts will play the dominant role in providing remedies including damages to recognize past violations but play a more dialogic role with respect to encouraging states to prevent similar violations in the future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Anglo-American lawmakers are in the midst of introducing a series of antidiscrimination protections for trans people. By and large, they are making this change by adding the terms 'gender identity' and 'gender expression' to a variety of human rights law instruments. In June 2017, for example, the Parliament of Canada passed Bill C-16, An Act to Amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code. The legislation adds the terms 'gender identity or expression' to the Canadian Human Rights Act, along with the hate crimes provisions of the Criminal Code. Similar pieces of legislation have been introduced in the United States and the United Kingdom. While legal scholarship has spent considerable time debating the merits of such legislation, comparatively less attention has been paid to the plural, and often contradictory, history of 'gender identity' and 'gender expression.' This article traces the origins of these terms, arguing that 'gender identity' is the product of mid-century psychiatric discourses that constructed trans people as a narrow class of persons. 'Gender expression' is a comparatively newer concept, emerging in the 1990s in concert with performative theories of gender that sought to demonstrate how disciplinary norms are imposed on all members of society. The contemporary reliance on these terms reflects what Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick has called the tension between 'minoritizing' and 'universalizing' accounts of gender and sexuality. The article is organized in four parts. Part I traces the origins of the term 'gender identity,' along with how it migrated from clinical contexts to legal forums. In 1994, the City of San Francisco became the first Anglo-American jurisdiction to entrench the term in a human rights instrument. Part II tracks the comparatively shorter history of the term 'gender expression.' The Part then traces the term's reception into human rights discourse, with New York City becoming the first Anglo-American jurisdiction to use the term 'gender expression' in 2000. Part III examines how two terms emerging out of different historical moments and with different sets of normative preoccupations have recently fused together to capture how individuals internally identify their gender and externally perform it. The article concludes by anticipating future implications for the corpus of trans humanrights law, which will inevitably continue to grapple with the tension between minoritizing and universalizing approaches. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Attorney General of Canada v Rapiscan Systems Inc., 2014 FC 68, rev'd 2015 FCA 96, has raised the following question: when should unsuccessful participants or non-participants in government tendering processes be entitled to administrative law remedies against a government agency? This is a vexing question to which Canadian courts have given various (and contradictory) answers. No clear or consistent answer can be found in the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court. An answer, however, is clearly needed. Indeterminacy in this arena - and the complex and protracted litigation associated with it - is costly for all involved. This comment argues Canadian courts have lost their way in using administrative law to review government tendering. The principles of contract law - and only those principles - should govern public procurement disputes except in very particular and limited circumstances. This result is preferable both doctrinally and as a matter of policy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This Article focuses on those who regulate U.S. lawyers. The Article argues that the lawyers who head regulatory bodies in the United States have the ability to adjust the focus of the regulator for which they work in a way that will increase client and public protection. The Article further argues that it is appropriate for lawyers in these positions to exercise this power and that they should do so. The Article concludes by offering two concrete recommendations. The first recommendation is that those who are in charge should, upon reflection, adopt a mindset in which they recognize that the regulator should be systematically trying to prevent problematic behavior by lawyers, as well as responding to such behavior after it occurs. The second recommendation is that regulators should take advantage of a tool they already have at their disposal, which is their state's equivalent to ABA Model Rule of Professional Conduct 5.1. If jurisdictions added two questions about Rule 5.1 to lawyers' annual bar dues statement, along with a link to additional online resources, they would be able to emulate actions that have been taken in Australia and Canada. The data suggest that such steps could dramatically reduce client complaints, lead to improved client service, and change the ways in which lawyers operate their law practices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the 1980s, Canada abandoned the traditional method of drafting Federal legislation in English and translating it into French, and replaced it with what came to be known as 'co-drafting'. After briefly reviewing some of the circumstances which led Canada, as a bilingual and 'bijural' country, to adopt such a method, this article examines how this method compares to traditional translation in practice, how it has evolved over the past 30 years and the impact it has had on the preparation of bilingual legislation in Canada, taking into account some of the challenges and pressures that affect the two languages involved (English and French) in the Canadian context. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Discussions and depictions of lawyers in Canada largely ignore a significant segment of the legal population: government lawyers. Canada is a modern liberal democratic state with a significant public sector employing a large number of lawyers in many public sector settings. Lawyers who work directly for the executive branch – government lawyers – are a special subset of public lawyers. These government lawyers are ‘unique’ in many respects. They do not have paying clients as do private sector lawyers. Their client is ‘the Crown’ – an abstract emanation of the state. This article explains the unique role of government lawyers in Canada as derived from the historic and legislative responsibilities of the Attorney General. It then addresses questions that arise for government lawyers in Canada in public law litigation. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

This article examines complex public law remedies in light of Lon Fuller's famous critique that courts are ill-equipped to deal with polycentric or multifaceted issues and the related critique that remedies for health care and other socio-economic rights result in queue jumping. Most contemporary commentators interpret Fuller as hostile to courts' ordering complex remedies. A more nuanced interpretation of Fuller advanced in PART II of this article suggests that polycentricity is a matter of degree and that courts can cautiously engage with polycentric issues by relying on negotiation among parties and drawing dialogically on the expertise of the legislature and the executive. At the same time, many commentators subsequent to Fuller have unwisely dismissed his concern about maintaining the integrity of adjudication by ensuring that successful litigants receive a tangible remedy. PART III will examine the American experience with complex remedies, suggesting that a recent California prison case illustrates some dangers of courts losing adjudicative focus when they take on too many polycentric problems. PART IV will suggest that, while Doucet-Boudreau and section 24(1) of the Charter should allow Canadian courts carefully to manage polycentric tasks by retaining jurisdiction, there have been some regrettable retreats from the majority's decision. Nevertheless, a new remedy of a 'declaration plus' will be defended as appropriate in prison and other complex cases. PART V will examine remedies in the polycentric context of health care. It will suggest that suspended declarations of invalidity such as was used in Chaoulli can also help manage polycentricity. The two-track approach to remedies defended in the PART VI would involve courts where possible, providing individual remedies to litigants while using more cautious dialogic remedies to address complex polycentric issues such as unconstitutional health care and prison conditions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This short reply clarifies and defends the argument presented in “The Environmental Emergency and the Legality of Discretion in Environmental Law." It responds to the arguments that were made, and that could have been made, in Pardy's critique “An Unbearable Licence." The reply further develops the publicjustification conception of the rule of law, arguing that it is at home within Canadian public law. It also argues that this conception of the rule of law highlights possibilities for future research directions in Canadian environmental law. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Osgoode Hall Law Journal is the property of Osgoode Hall Law School 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.)

The article explores the legal and historical perspectives of treaties. Topics discussed include categorization of treaties on terms of colonization, legal arguments for the normative treaty rights jurisprudence, and the role of the public law of Canada in defining and regulating terms and legal composition of treaties.

Scholars divide into two main camps in the debate on the role of law in shaping the decisions of individuals. Rational choice scholars argue that individual preferences are exogenous to law, so law can be used instrumentally; realist and socio-legal scholars argue that law is culturally contingent and must be understood in its broader context. Recent work in the theory of reference-dependent preferences may help unite the two schools by suggesting that while social context helps us understand law's operation, law can also determine that context and culture. This would complicate the relationship of law to individual decisions. This paper provides empirical evidence to help determine whether law acts as a reference point, by looking to a major difference in the level of property protection provided by the constitutions of Canada and the United States. Unlike Americans, Canadians do not enjoy constitutional protection against the expropriation of private property. Except where there are statutory restrictions, Canadian governments can expropriate land without compensating the property owner. Therefore, according to reference point theory, attitudes towards expropriation should differ between Americans and Canadians. The author administered a survey to a group of Canadian students, asking them to describe their financial and attitudinal responses to hypothetical scenarios involving government expropriation of their property. The results were then compared to those of a similar, earlier study in the US. If constitutions have expressive power and can act as reference points for shaping individual preferences and culture, we would expect to see a difference in the responses to the two studies. Surprisingly, no such difference was found. Attitudes among Canadian respondents were largely similar to those in the American study. These results challenge the widespread assumption that Americans are more attached to private property than Canadians. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

While comparative public law scholars report that we are witnessing a “global expansion of judicial power” (Tate and Vallinder, 1995), much of the comparative research also suggests that judicial power is subject to significant external constraints, including those associated with interests of governmental actors (such as Helmke, 2005; Vanberg, 2005). In Canada, however, the question of the extent to which governmental actors affect the Supreme Court of Canada's decision making in the wake of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms has not received systematic attention (but see Hennigar, 2010; Kelly, 2005). The paper analyzes the extent to which governmental mobilization through third-party intervention affects the Supreme Court's decision making. It relies on a dataset of all constitutional rights cases involving review of written laws decided by the Court in the post-charter period (1982–2007). It shows that third-party intervention is a powerful institutional mechanism providing governmental actors with an opportunity to systematically affect the exercise of judicial review. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The article presents insights into the application of the Canadian human rights in administrative decision-making in Australian Capital Territory and Victoria jurisdictions. It informs that despite the new Canadian approach offers remedies to some of problems faced by Australian courts, especially in the Victoria Court of Appeal case of R v. Momcilovic, however it is based on principles that have no equivalence in Australian public law.

The article focuses on Canadian Supreme Court case R. v. Kapp, which created the Charter equality right that allows the court to separate decisions from the requirements of the Canadian Charter of Human Rights. Topics include the right to equality in Canada, the infringement of dignity, and constitutional law in Canada.

The article focuses on the appropriateness of using foreign law to resolve cases concerning constitutional rights in Canada. Topics include the analytical framework used to resolve rights claims, the interpretation and application of constitutional law in Canada, and the protection of fundamental human rights.

This article evaluates the varying ways in which the courts of New Zealand and Canada respond to arguments that government procurement exercises are subject to the principles and remedies of public law. While conceding that context is critical and that there are many, often competing considerations that are relevant in the evaluation of such arguments, the author contends that the courts in both countries should at least on occasion be open to the availability of public law remedies for misfired government procurement exercises, and, more importantly, whether by judicial review or civil action, to the deployment of public law principles in the assessment of the procedural and substantive components of government procurement. More generally, the author warns against the movement in both countries in the direction of the assimilation of public procurement within existing principles and remedies of private tendering law. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Can a public authority avoid public law requirements, such as an obligation to act fairly, by 'contracting out' the performance of its functions? In Société de l'assurance automobile du Québec v. Cyr, the Supreme Court of Canada said 'no,' but it did not explain how far the Court will move the boundaries of judicial review to adapt to the growth of the private role in governance. However, there is reason to believe that the Court is moving towards a functional approach in defining state power and the location of the boundary between public and private law. This promises to be more coherent and effective than the piecemeal functional approaches that have emerged in the United States and the United Kingdom. A functional approach will prevent the lines of legal accountability to Parliament, the legislatures, the electorate and the courts from being severed by a contract between a public authority and a private party. At the same time, the emerging functional approach accepts that public law remedies should generally not be available if private law offers an adequate remedy or if applying public law would generate disproportionate costs to efficiency or would damage other public law objectives or private interests. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the court case Canada (Attorney General) V. Telezone. The Supreme Court of Canada rejected the Attorney General's claim that the Federal Court Act requires parties seeking to commence civil actions in damages against the Federal Crown. It notes that the Supreme Court has declined to hear public law proceeding.

Civic republican theory occupies an important place in the contemporary public law literature of some jurisdictions but has not significantly influenced Canadian constitutional theory. Moreover, and again unlike other jurisdictions, there have been few theoretical accounts that provide a unified view of Canadian constitutional law rather than focusing on specific topics (i.e., particular rights) or domains (i.e., federalism or rights). This essay begins to fill these gaps in the literature. I will argue that civic republicanism fits and justifies a broad range of domains of Canadian constitutional law. I build my argument on what is considered by many to be a core feature of civic republicanism, namely, the principle of non-domination, and I offer arguments that are consistent with a particular strand of civic republican theory. This essay will focus that version of the theory on rule-of-law issues and on questions of individual rights. In Part I, I will distinguish civic republican from liberal theories of law. In Part II, I argue that the concept of the rule of law, as it has been developed in Canada, evidences core features of civic republicanism. In Part III, I will argue that some individual rights doctrines also manifest essential characteristics of civic republican theory, including solicitude for the capacity of citizens to engage on equal terms with one another in public debates, and concern about the vulnerability of citizens to arbitrary state action. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article offers information on the Supreme Court's approach for upholding limit on charter rights and freedom in Canada. It states the criteria for the approach which includes the recognition of significant objectives to justify a constitutionally protected freedom or right and a proportionality test. It relates that the approach have contributed to the reflection on several challenges including maintenance of a bilingual public law and suitable position for judges employing bill of rights.

Government lawyers are significant actors in the Canadian legal profession, yet they are largely ignored by regulators and by academic scholarship. The dominant view of lawyering fails to adequately capture the unique role of government lawyers. Government lawyers are different from other lawyers by virtue of their role in creating and upholding the rule of law. Most accounts of government lawyers separate public law duties of government from ethical duties of lawyers; for example, acknowledging the "public interest" role of government lawyers but asserting that this has no impact on their ethical duties as lawyers. Instead of this compartmentalized approach, this article advocates a unified vision, of the roles and responsibilities of government lawyers. Examining the role of government lawyers should start by recognizing that they operate at the intersection of public law and legal ethics. Government lawyers are not simply lawyers working in the public sector. Nor are they simply public servants who happen to be lawyers. They are both lawyers and public servants at the same time. This creates unique tensions, problems and responsibilities for government lawyers. Government lawyers do owe a higher ethical duty than other lawyers which is explained through the concept of government lawyers as custodians of the rule of law. Existing forms of regulation are adequate for public protection but insufficient in public law terms to address concerns regarding the exercise of public power Additional forms of accountability should be created including the development of specific codes of conduct for government lawyers, proactive disclosure and the creation of an Office of Professional Responsibility within federal and provincial departments of justice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article examines the application of assumed jurisdiction and the recognition of foreign judgments to private international law. It focuses on several court cases involving jurisdictional issues and extraprovincial judgments held in the Supreme Court of Canada. It also looks at the decision of the justices and the jurisdictional approach used in court cases such as Morguard Investments Ltd. v. De Savoye, Muscutt v. Courcelles, and Van Breda v. Village Resorts Ltd. According to the author, certainty in matters of jurisdiction is complex in promoting legal efficiency and cost-savings for litigants in times of financial crisis. It also concludes that in the determination of order and fairness in dispute resolution, the courts should advance cost-savings in litigation and legal analysis.

Perhaps largely due to the successful campaigning of a number of pressure groups and social movements, but also due to the established position of related subjects within academia, there is a now almost routine consideration of class, ethnicity, gender and sexuality in relation to citizenship. Disability and the position of disabled people as “citizens” has not, however, received as much attention. It is the assertion of this article that this is a significant fact, for a consideration of disability in relation to citizenship provides useful insights into the strengths and weaknesses of some important theories of citizenship. Further, it demonstrates the need for an approach that takes account of the increasing uncertainty of groups such as disabled people towards their own identities and that conceives citizenship as being a process of “proactive engagement” towards a “reflexive position”. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article is concerned with the ways in which border control has been reconstituted through Canada's Permanent Resident Card (PRC). Some questions examined with this paper include: how did the PRC come to exist as a technology of border control? Does it function as a symbol of the Canadian nation-state's imperative to manage transnational movement and access to the geopolitical space of the nation and, if so, how? Through what means does the PRC and the events surrounding its introduction and use facilitate processes of serialization and racialization? Does the PRC, as a technique of reason of state, do the work of producing the category “responsible immigrants”? The notions of “economies of bodies” and “bordering” are important here. “Bordering” opens up the concept of the border from a fixed place to a verb, or a process. Given this, bordering does not only occur at the territorial boundaries of the nation-state, it can also be internal to it. By examining how the category of “permanent resident” is organized, gains meaning and is maintained, this article demonstrates how the technology of the PRC and similar technologies of the regulation of mobility operate as practices of bordering and nation-making and constitute Canadian citizenship. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Attempts to make the case for an abiding territoriality in the substance of Canadian administrative law. Identification of several salient characteristics of administrative law and scholarship practiced in French within Quebec; Examination of Suzanne Comtois' account of the pragmatic and functional approach in action; Examination of the metaphors deeply embedded in contemporary administrative law thinking and posits ways to loosen their conceptual hold.

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms—production of private records—criminal law—rights of victims of sexual assault—rights of the accused [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The article focuses on the amending enactments of the Parliament of Canada. It explores the two legal effects of statute revision in Great Britain and peculiarity in North America. It mentions the four parts of the Revised Statutes, including public law, property and civil rights, and civil procedure and criminal law. It highlights the doctrine of merger, which is used as term for the rule operated by amending enactments in the same manner as the enactments they amend.

Discusses the administrative law and the British North America Act in Canada. Constitutional problems of Canada; Shannon v. Lower Mainland Dairy Product case dealing with the issue of delegation of legislative power; Limitations imposed by the British North America Act on the delegation of judicial power.

The article focuses on three meetings held in various parts of the world related to various aspects of sociology and criminology. First one was held from 27 August to 3 September 1965, Montreal, Quebec. It became the capital of international criminology. In it criminologists from all over the world met to take their bearings and to see what progress has been achieved in the scientific study of the causes of delinquency, methods of preventing criminal acts. Secondly, under the programmer for the development of comparative cross-cultural research of the International Social Science Cultural (ISSC), a conference following the ISSC General Assembly, was held in Paris, France from 22 to 24 April 1965. The conference considered five main themes: the cross-cultural method; comparative analysis of historical change; comparative analysis of processes of modernization; aggregate statistical comparisons of nations; comparative sample surveys. In general terms, the purpose of the conference was to discuss recent examples of comparative research on each of the above themes and to review alternative strategies for the further advancement of comparative research on a world scale. Lastly, representatives of the six European institutes taking part in the research for a comparative study of the various forms of aid to developing countries met in Vienna, Austria from 20 to 22 September 1963 to discuss the issue.