Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 6 of 6
Full-Text Articles in Law
When (And Where) Is A Crime A Crime? “Double Criminality” As A Principle Of Fundamental Justice, Robert J. Currie
When (And Where) Is A Crime A Crime? “Double Criminality” As A Principle Of Fundamental Justice, Robert J. Currie
Articles, Book Chapters, & Popular Press
The idea that crime crosses borders is fast becoming ordinary, even old hat, particularly in an age of online crime such as ransomware attacks, cyber-extortion and the like. As we have become more geographically mobile, however, it is increasingly common for people to have engaged in criminal conduct in one state1 but then seek to exercise legal rights, or face legal entanglements, in others. Legal questions can then arise about what effect should be given by one state—in this article, Canada—to an individual’s conduct that was, or is alleged to have been, a crime in a foreign state. The inquiry …
Folk Hero Or Legal Pariah? A Comment On The Legal Ethics Of Edgar Schmidt And Schmidt V Canada (Attorney General), Andrew Flavelle Martin
Folk Hero Or Legal Pariah? A Comment On The Legal Ethics Of Edgar Schmidt And Schmidt V Canada (Attorney General), Andrew Flavelle Martin
Articles, Book Chapters, & Popular Press
In Schmidt v Canada (Attorney General), government lawyer Edgar Schmidt sought a declaration that the Department of Justice and the Minister of Justice were misinterpreting legislation requiring the Minister to inform the House of Commons if government bills are inconsistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Schmidt was one of the lawyers who made recommendations under that legislation. Schmidt thus presents an unusual case study in legal ethics: what should, or can, a lawyer do when a client rejects the lawyer’s advice? What if the client is the government, and the advice is about fundamental rights? This …
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 …
A Test For Freedom Of Conscience Under The Canadian Charter Of Rights And Freedoms: Regulating And Litigating Conscientious Refusals In Health Care, Jocelyn Downie, Francoise Baylis
A Test For Freedom Of Conscience Under The Canadian Charter Of Rights And Freedoms: Regulating And Litigating Conscientious Refusals In Health Care, Jocelyn Downie, Francoise Baylis
Articles, Book Chapters, & Popular Press
Conscientious refusal to provide insured health care services is a significant point of controversy in Canada, especially in reproductive medicine and end-of-life care. Some provincial and territorial legislatures have developed legislation or regulations, and some professional regulatory bodies have developed policies or guidelines, to better reconcile tensions between health care professionals’ conscience and patients’ access to health care services. As other groups attempt to draft standards and as challenges to existing standards head to court, the fact that the meaning of “freedom of conscience” under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is not yet settled will become ever more …
Cross-Cutting Conflicts: Developments In The Use Of Norwich Orders In Internet Defamation Cases, Robert Currie
Cross-Cutting Conflicts: Developments In The Use Of Norwich Orders In Internet Defamation Cases, Robert Currie
Articles, Book Chapters, & Popular Press
The anonymity afforded to those wishing to post commentary on the internet has given rise to a number of procedural issues in Canadian case law. This paper focuses on one such issue: the need for prospective plaintiffs in defamation actions to "unmask" anonymous commentators in order to be able to bring proceedings against them. It tracks the increasing use of the "Norwich order," A.K.A an order for pre-action discovery, as a means of accomplishing this objective, by examining the leading case of Warman v. Fournier and analyzing how this issue has played out in litigation to date. It also considers …