Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Law
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 …