Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Judges
The Impeachment Of The Judges Of The Nova Scotia Supreme Court, 1787-1793: Colonial Judges, Loyalist Lawyers, And The Colonial Assembly, Jim Phillips
Dalhousie Law Journal
In 1790 the Nova Scotia House of Assembly passed seven "articles of impeachment" against two ofthe colony's Supreme Courtjudges, the firstattempt bya British North American assembly to remove superior courtjudges. Although the impeachment failed when the British government rejected the charges, it is noteworthy nonetheless. The product of a dispute between newly arrived loyalist lawyers and a local elite of "old inhabitants, " it was at one and the same time a political struggle between the Assembly and the executive branch, and one that involved concerns about judicial competence. The impeachment crisis also demonstrates the close links between the judiciary …
Revising Canada's Ethical Rules For Judges Returning To Practice, Stephen Ga Pitel, Will Bortolin
Revising Canada's Ethical Rules For Judges Returning To Practice, Stephen Ga Pitel, Will Bortolin
Dalhousie Law Journal
It has recently become more common for retired Canadian judges to return to the practice of law This development raises an array of ethical considerations and potential threats to the integrity of the administration of justice. Although most codes of legal ethics contemplate the possibility of former judges returning to practice, the rules on this particular topic are dated, under-analyzed, and generally inadequate. This article reviews the Canadian ethical rules that specifically relate to former judges and identifies their shortcomings. In doing so, the authors consider, for comparative purposes, Canadian ethical rules directed at former public officers who return to …
Sharing The Spotlight: Co-Authored Reasons On The Modern Supreme Court Of Canada, Peter J. Maccormick
Sharing The Spotlight: Co-Authored Reasons On The Modern Supreme Court Of Canada, Peter J. Maccormick
Dalhousie Law Journal
When the Supreme Court of Canada delivers its reasons forjudgment, the normal expectation (the rare "By the Court" decision aside) is that the judgment of the Court-unanimous or majority or even plurality-will be designated as having been delivered by one specific judge. ("The reasons of A, B, C and D were delivered by B.") But in recent decades, the practice has developed for two or more judges to share this formal designation; co-authorships currently account for one judgment (and, for that matter one set of minority reasons) in every ten. This article explores this practice, unusual among comparable national high …