Constitutional Forum (Journal)
Not a member yet
551 research outputs found
Sort by
The Incremental Evolution of National Receivership Law and the Elusive Search for Federal Purpose
No full textThere was a period when provincial legislation that trespassed too deeply into the federal field of bankruptcy and insolvency law was likely to be declared to be ultra vires as an invasion of the exclusive federal power in relation to that field. The five-to-four split in the 1978 Supreme Court of Canada decision in Robinson v Countrywide Factors Ltd was very much a turning point. Thereafter, the constitutionality of provincial legislation was almost invariably determined through the application of the paramountcy principle. Pursuant to this principle, a provincial statute is rendered inoperative to the extent that it conflicts with the federal statute. The Supreme Court of Canada has created a two-branched test for determining the presence of a conflict. Under the first branch, there is an operational conflict when it is impossible to comply with both the federal and the provincial statute. Under the second branch, there is a conflict when the operation of the provincial statute frustrates the purpose of the federal statute. Either type of conflict will render the provincial statute inoperative..
NDP Negotiations on Patriation: Calgary, February 1981
No full textThis second article, “NDP Negotiations on Patriation”, deals with many of the same participants who were involved in the October negotiations. The failure of the government of Saskatchewan to agree with the federal government on its patriation project meant that the federal NDP was split on the issue. On one side, the federal NDP, together with some of the provincial sections, supported the federal government initiative. On the other side, the NDP government of Saskatchewan, and some other provincial sections, were in opposition
Introduction
No full textThis special issue of the Constitutional Forum publishes, for the first time, several articles and documents which have hitherto not been available or discussed in detail. In particular, it examines several events occurring between October 1980 and October 1981 from new perspectives. These perspectives come from participants who were either less well-known or not perceived to have been central or critical to the direction of negotiations during this period of time.The articles in this special issue collectively argue that these “other” participants were important in their own right, and the shape of patriation — if it had occurred at all — would have been considerably different had these individuals not been involved
Round One: Saskatchewan — Canada Negotiations 1980
No full textThis first article examines the period immediately after the First Ministers Conference on the Constitution in September of 1980
Les leçons de Jordan, I : quelles sont les voies de recours extraordinaires contre un arrêt de la Cour suprême?
No full textRécemment, dans de très nombreuses affaires, l’approche de l’échéance procédurale qu’a introduite l’arrêt Jordan de 2016 a pu faire se demander s’il était possible d’obtenir une forme ou une autre de « suspension » judiciaire de cet arrêt. C’était l’automne dernier, surtout au Québec, où l’appréhension suscitée par l’imminente et systématique arrivée de l’échéance s’est largement traduite par une grogne populaire à l’encontre de l’arrêt, par la volonté exprimée que le poursuivant puisse s’y dérober ainsi que par une instrumentalisation politique certaine de cette grogne et de cette volonté
Reforming Rowbotham: Towards Fairer Financial Eligibility Standards for State-Funded Counsel in Criminal Trials
No full textMy argument proceeds in three parts. First, I provide background on Rowbotham orders and the circumstances in which they are granted. I then critique one prevailing approach to interpreting the Financial Branch before outlining and justifying my proposed changes to that approach. Finally, I address possible objections to my position
Les leçons de Jordan, III : à quelles conditions est-il légitime de déroger aux droits constitutionnels fondamentaux?
No full textDans quelles circonstances est-il légitime de la part du législateur de déroger aux droits constitutionnels fondamentaux? Jusqu’à ce qu’une argumentation convaincante soutenant le contraire soit produite, la réponse à cette question est selon moi la suivante : en situation d’urgence ou autrement exceptionnelle. Avant d’expliquer pourquoi, il convient de bien circonscrire le propos
