Digital Commons Network^™

The Future Of Canadian Federalism, Susan Lavergne

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Learning Lessons From Multani: Considering Canada's Response To Religious Garb Issues In Public Schools, Allison N. Crawford

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Canadian Constitutional Law, Fourth Edition, Patrick Macklem, Carol Rogerson, Joel Bakan, Jean Leclair, John Borrows, Ian Lee, Sujit Choudhry, Richard Moon, Robin Elliot, R. C. B. Risk, Jean-François Gaudreault-Desbiens, Kent Roach, Donna Greschner, Bruce Ryder, Patricia Hughes, David Schneiderman, Lorraine Weinrib

Sujit Choudhry

In its 4th edition, Canadian Constitutional Law continues to offer a truly national perspective — drawing on an editorial team that is rich with regional, linguistic, and scholarly diversity. This edition remains true to the structure and purposes of previous editions, especially with regard to the editors’ commitment to the idea that understanding constitutional history is critical to comprehending the present and future of Canadian constitutional law.

Preventive Detention In Malaysia: Constitutional And Judicial Obstacles To Reform And Suggestions For The Future, Tyler James B. Jeffery

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

County Court, Nassau County, People V. Osbourne, Diane Matero

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Insights From Canada For American Constitutional Federalism, Stephen F. Ross

Journal Articles

The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 132 S. Ct. 2566 (2012), has again focused widespread public attention on the Court as an arbiter of the balance of power between the federal government and the states. The topic of the proper role a nation's highest court in this respect has been important and controversial throughout not only American, but also Canadian history, raising questions of constitutional theory for a federalist republic: What justifies unelected judges interfering with the ordinary political process with regard to federalism questions? Can courts create judicially manageable doctrines to police …

Canadian Bijuralism At A Crossroad? The Impact Of Section 8.1 Of The Interpretation Act On Judicial Interpretation Of Federal Legislation, Aline Grenon

Osgoode Hall Law Journal

Section 8.1 of the Interpretation Act affirms the equal authority of the common law and civil law in the field of property and civil rights. The section states, subject to two exceptions, that federal enactments based on rules and concepts that are part of the law of property and civil rights are to be interpreted in accordance with these rules and concepts. Prior to the enactment of section 8.1 in 2001, courts had a tendency to opt for a uniform application of federal legislation based on common law concepts, with often negative results for Quebec civil law. Since then, the …

Warrant Canaries Beyond The First Amendment: A Comment, Jonathon Penney

Articles, Book Chapters, & Popular Press

Warrant canaries have emerged as an intriguing tool for Internet companies to provide some measure of transparency for users while also complying with national security laws. Though there is at least a reasonable argument for the legality of warrant canaries in the U.S. based primarily on First Amendment "compelled speech" doctrine, the same cannot be said for the use of warrant canaries in other "Five Eyes” intelligence agency countries — United Kingdom, Canada, New Zealand, and Australia — where the legality of warrant canaries has yet to be examined in either cases or scholarship. This comment, which provides an overview …

Failure To Report: The Manifestly Unconstitutional Nature Of The Human Smugglers Act, Jennifer Bond

Osgoode Hall Law Journal

This paper uses the Human Smugglers Act as a case study of what can happen when a Canadian government tables legislation that is highly controversial not only for reasons of ideology or policy, but also because it almost certainly violates the Charter. The conclusion is twofold: first, that a requirement originally meant to increase government accountability in the face of Canada’s human rights instruments is failing; and second, that this same requirement is now providing the government political cover to deflect legitimate constitutional critique while simultaneously avoiding substantive engagement. The result is an impoverished constitutional dialogue and a misled Canadian …

Respecting Democratic Constitutional Change, Craig M. Scott

Craig M. Scott