Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
The Supreme Court Of Canada And Constitutional (Equality) Baselines, Rosalind Dixon
The Supreme Court Of Canada And Constitutional (Equality) Baselines, Rosalind Dixon
Osgoode Hall Law Journal
In its approach to defining “analogous grounds” for the purposes of subsection 15(1) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Supreme Court of Canada has adopted an unusual mix of broad and generous interpretation, and high formalism. This article argues that one potential reason for this is the degree of heterogeneity among the nine distinct enumerated grounds in section 15. Heterogeneity of this kind can produce quite different interpretive consequences, depending on whether a court adopts a direct, “multi-pronged,” or a more synthetic, “common denominator,” approach to the question of analogical development. The Court, over time, has implicitly shifted …
The Constitutionalization Of Quebec Libel Law, 1848-2004, Joseph Kary
The Constitutionalization Of Quebec Libel Law, 1848-2004, Joseph Kary
Osgoode Hall Law Journal
In 1848, a Quebec judge changed the law of defamation to accord with the newly-applicable constitutional right to freedom of speech. His decision and those that followed seem strange now that the Supreme Court of Canada has held that Charter rights do not apply to private law. These decisions show that the constitutionalization of libel law was not an American innovation, but rather one that emerged in Canada over a century earlier. This article analyzes the Quebec cases in detail, and suggests that they were grounded in liberal ideas about the British Constitution that were prevalent in Lower Canada at …
Governance And Anarchy In The S.2(B) Jurisprudence: A Comment On Vancouver Sun And Harper V. Canada, Jamie Cameron
Governance And Anarchy In The S.2(B) Jurisprudence: A Comment On Vancouver Sun And Harper V. Canada, Jamie Cameron
Articles & Book Chapters
The article identifies and explains a double standard in the Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence. The contrast is between the open court jurisprudence, which is a model of good constitutional governance – or principled decision making – and the Court’s s.2(b) methodology, which is “anarchistic” or capricious and undisciplined, in the sense of this article. Two landmark cases decided in 2004 illustrate the double standard: the first is Re Vancouver Sun, [2004] 2 S.C.R. 332, which dealt with the open court principle under Parliament’s anti-terrorism provision for investigative hearings, it represents a high water mark for open court and s.2(b) …