Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 11 of 11
Full-Text Articles in Law
Prescribed By Law/Une Règle De Droit, Robert Leckey
Prescribed By Law/Une Règle De Droit, Robert Leckey
Osgoode Hall Law Journal
In Multani, the Supreme Court of Canada's kirpan case, judges disagree over the proper approach to reviewing administrative action under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The concurring judges questioned the leading judgment, Slaight Communications, on the basis that it is inconsistent with the French text of section I. This disagreement stimulates reflections on language and culture in Canadian constitutional and administrative law. A reading of both language versions of section 1, Slaight, and the critical scholarship 'reveals a linguistic dualism in which scholars read one version of the Charter and of the judgment and write about them in …
The Charter 25 Years Later: The Good, The Bad, And The Challenges, Beverley Mclachlin
The Charter 25 Years Later: The Good, The Bad, And The Challenges, Beverley Mclachlin
Osgoode Hall Law Journal
This year, as we celebrate the 25th anniversary of the adoption of the Charter, journals and newspapers are replete with evaluations. Some are positive, some less so. Some are downright critical. Today, I would like to offer my reflections on the good news and the bad news about the Charter,a quarter-century on.
Foreword, Jamie Cameron
Charter Dialogue Revisited: Or "Much Ado About Metaphors", Peter W. Hogg, Allison A. Bushell Thornton, Wade K. Wright
Charter Dialogue Revisited: Or "Much Ado About Metaphors", Peter W. Hogg, Allison A. Bushell Thornton, Wade K. Wright
Osgoode Hall Law Journal
This article is a sequel to the 1997 article "The Charter Dialogue Between Courts and Legislatures (Or Perhaps The Charter of Rights Isn't Such A Bad Thing After All)." In the present article, the authors review various academic critiques of their "dialogue" theory, which postulates that Charter decisions striking down laws are not the last word, but rather the beginning of a "dialogue," because legislative bodies are generally able to (and generally do) enact sequel legislation that accomplishes the main objective of the unconstitutional law. The authors also examine the Supreme Court of Canada's dicta on the "dialogue" phenomenon, and …
Does The Observer Have An Effect?: An Analysis Of The Use Of The Dialogue Metaphor In Canada's Courts, Richard Haigh, Michael Sobkin
Does The Observer Have An Effect?: An Analysis Of The Use Of The Dialogue Metaphor In Canada's Courts, Richard Haigh, Michael Sobkin
Osgoode Hall Law Journal
In "Charter Dialogue Revisited-Or 'Much Ado About Metaphors,"' it is noted that the original idea behind the dialogue metaphor was simply to describe Canada's constitutional structure. Despite this, the metaphor has been criticized for having normative content and influencing courts and legislatures. In this commentary, the authors analyze all Supreme Court of Canada and lower court uses of the dialogue metaphor and conclude that, with some exceptions, the courts have employed the metaphor properly, i.e., descriptively. Since, however, the metaphor can be misapplied-used other than to describe or explain the relationship between the courts and legislatures in Canada-the authors recommend …
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 …
Taking Dialogue Theory Much Too Seriously (Or Perhaps Charter Dialogue Isn't Such A Good Thing After All), Andrew Petter
Taking Dialogue Theory Much Too Seriously (Or Perhaps Charter Dialogue Isn't Such A Good Thing After All), Andrew Petter
Osgoode Hall Law Journal
This article challenges the thesis of Peter W. Hogg, Allison A. Bushell Thornton, and Wade K. Wright (put forth earlier in this issue) that the frequency of legislative responses to Charter decisions striking down laws, which they refer to as "Charter dialogue," provides evidence that Canada has a weaker form of. judicial review than is thought to exist in the United States. This article also critiques their claim that judicial review is justified by the idea that individuals have rights that cannot be taken away by an appeal to the general welfare'. The author maintains that this claim not only …
A Reply On "Charter Dialogue Revisited", Peter W. Hogg, Allison A. Bushell Thornton, Wade K. Wright
A Reply On "Charter Dialogue Revisited", Peter W. Hogg, Allison A. Bushell Thornton, Wade K. Wright
Osgoode Hall Law Journal
No abstract provided.
Constitutionalism From The Top Down, Grant Huscroft
Constitutionalism From The Top Down, Grant Huscroft
Osgoode Hall Law Journal
Dialogue theory regards judicial interpretation of the Charter as authoritative, and, as a result, denies that continuing disagreement with the courts is legitimate. There is little scope, in other words, for dialogue with the courts in any meaningful sense. The Charter is best understood as establishing strong-form judicial review rather than weak, and legislatures have only as much room to respond to judicial decisions as the courts are prepared to allow.
Dialogue Theory, Judicial Review, And Judicial Supremacy: A Comment On "Charter Dialogue Revisted", Carissima Mathen
Dialogue Theory, Judicial Review, And Judicial Supremacy: A Comment On "Charter Dialogue Revisted", Carissima Mathen
Osgoode Hall Law Journal
By suggesting that we view the judicial-legislative relationship as a dialogue, the authors of "Charter Dialogue" have greatly influenced constitutional debate in Canada. This commentary offers three observations about the authors' latest contribution. First, it queries the continued usefulness of the term "dialogue." Second, it raises concerns with the idea that section 1 of the Charter promotes dialogue, as the term is now explained by the authors. Finally, it queries the authors' perspective on judicial review and their accompanying terminology.
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 …