Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Entire DC Network
Unreasonable Disagreement?: Judicial–Executive Exchanges About Charter Reasonableness In The Harper Era, Matthew A. Hennigar
Unreasonable Disagreement?: Judicial–Executive Exchanges About Charter Reasonableness In The Harper Era, Matthew A. Hennigar
Osgoode Hall Law Journal
Assessments of “reasonableness” are central to adjudicating claims under several Charter rights and the section 1 “reasonable limits” clause. By comparing Supreme Court of Canada rulings to facta submitted by the Attorney General of Canada to the Court, this article examines the federal government’s success under Prime Minister Harper at persuading the Supreme Court of Canada that its Charter infringements in the area of criminal justice policy are reasonable, and when they fail to do so, on what grounds. The evidence reveals that the Conservative government adopted a consistently defensive posture in court, never conceding that a law was unreasonable, …
Sharpening The Dialogue Debate: The Next Decade Of Scholarship, Kent Roach
Sharpening The Dialogue Debate: The Next Decade Of Scholarship, Kent Roach
Osgoode Hall Law Journal
The first part of this commentary examines the roles of coordinate construction in which legislatures act on their own interpretation of the constitution, second look cases in which the courts judge the constitutionality of a legislative reply to a judicial decision, and various constitutional remedies. The second part examines some differences in emphasis between the author's approach to dialogue and that taken by Hogg and his co-authors with respect to the justification of the judicial role in the dialogue, the relation between Charter dialogue and common law constitutionalism, and the proper interpretive approach to section 7 of the Charter. Three …
The Day The Dialogue Died: A Comment On Sauve V. Canada, Christopher P. Manfredi
The Day The Dialogue Died: A Comment On Sauve V. Canada, Christopher P. Manfredi
Osgoode Hall Law Journal
In Sauvé v. Canada (2002) a sharply divided Supreme Court of Canada nullified the inmate disenfranchisement provision of the Canada Elections Act. One of the more important aspects of the majority decision by Chief Justice McLachlin is her refusal to let the concept of dialogue take her down the path of judicial deference. This commentary examines the chief justice's reasons for not taking this path and explores how these reasons reveal the limitations of the dialogue metaphor as originally articulated by Peter Hogg and Allison Bushell. The commentary concludes that any meaningful concept of legislative-judicial dialogue must recognize a coordinate …