Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 5 of 5
Full-Text Articles in Law
The Duty Of Legislative Counsel As Guardians Of The Statute Book: Sui Generis Or A Professional Duty Of Lawyers?, Andrew Flavelle Martin
The Duty Of Legislative Counsel As Guardians Of The Statute Book: Sui Generis Or A Professional Duty Of Lawyers?, Andrew Flavelle Martin
Articles, Book Chapters, & Popular Press
Legislative counsel—those who draft legislation for the executive or for legislative assemblies—are largely overlooked in the Canadian legal literature and case law. One respect in which legislative counsel appear to be unique is their duty as guardians or keepers of the statute book. This article argues that this Guardian duty is best understood as a professional duty of legislative counsel as lawyers. In the same way that all lawyers have professional duties as officers of the court, though these duties are most relevant to litigators, all lawyers have professional duties as officers of the statute book, though these duties are …
Does The Attorney General Have A Duty To Defend Her Legislature’S Statutes? A Comment On The Reference Re Genetic Non-Discrimination Act, Andrew Martin
Articles, Book Chapters, & Popular Press
The Reference Re Genetic Non-Discrimination Act was unusual because the Attorney General for Canada argued that federal legislation was unconstitutional. In this comment, I explore the implications of this choice for the role of the Attorney General and her relationship with Parliament. I argue that the Attorney General has a duty not to defend legislation, including legislation that began as a private member’s bill, that she reasonably believes to be unconstitutional – and that if Parliament wants to defend such legislation, it should do so itself instead of relying on the Attorney General. If Parliament does not do so, the …
Unconstitutional Or Just Unworkable? The Life And Death Of A Prohibition On Floor-Crossing In Fletcher V The Government Of Manitoba, Andrew Martin
Unconstitutional Or Just Unworkable? The Life And Death Of A Prohibition On Floor-Crossing In Fletcher V The Government Of Manitoba, Andrew Martin
Articles, Book Chapters, & Popular Press
Fletcher v the Government of Manitoba is the first reported challenge to a floor-crossing prohibition under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This case comment begins with the legislative history of the challenged provision and then provides an overview and critique of the reasons in Fletcher. Against this backdrop, it then reflects on the lessons of the case in two respects. The first is the difficulty in translating a policy idea into legislation – specifically, defining the conduct to be prohibited and determining the appropriate deterrent or penalty for breach. The second respect is the government’s role in …
The Attorney General's Forgotten Role As Legal Advisor To The Legislature: A Comment On Schmidt V Canada (Attorney General), Andrew Martin
The Attorney General's Forgotten Role As Legal Advisor To The Legislature: A Comment On Schmidt V Canada (Attorney General), Andrew Martin
Articles, Book Chapters, & Popular Press
In Schmidt v Canada (Attorney General), the Federal Court of Appeal interpreted a series of provisions requiring the Minister of Justice to inform the House of Commons if government bills or proposed regulations are “inconsistent with” the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or the Canadian Bill of Rights. The Federal Court of Appeal, like the Federal Court below, held that these provisions are triggered only where there is no credible argument for consistency. In doing so, both Courts relied, in part, on a separation of powers argument. They stated that the Minister of Justice and Attorney General is not …
Prosecutorial Control In Canada: The Definition Of Attorney-General In Section 2 Of The Criminal Code, Camille Cameron
Prosecutorial Control In Canada: The Definition Of Attorney-General In Section 2 Of The Criminal Code, Camille Cameron
Articles, Book Chapters, & Popular Press
In 1969, as a result of the redefinition of Attorney-General” in section 2 of the Criminal Code, the federal Attorney-General assumed an increased role in criminal prosecutions within the provinces. This new role has resulted in various challenges to the constitutional validity of the amendment — the provinces claim that the new definition is an encroachment upon the administration of justice power given to them by section 92(14) of the British North America Act while the federal government relies on its criminal law power to justify the amendment. The author examines the 1969 amendment in light of sections 91(27) and …