Constitutional Forum (Journal)
Not a member yet
551 research outputs found
Sort by
Annotated Notes: Gang of Eight Ministers of Intergovernmental Affairs Meeting June 4, 1981 — Winnipeg
No full textOn June 4, 1981, a meeting was held in Winnipeg by the ministers of intergovernmental affairs for the eight provinces that were opposing the federal government’s plan on patriation. Their intentions were to review the various elements of the plan to stop patriation from taking place.Below are my notes of that meeting. They have been altered somewhat in order to make them more understandable. The original notes as I recorded them are in italics. Explanatory notes follow in standard type within brackets to provide background and/or to clarify the comments by the Ministers
Les leçons de Jordan, II : l’article 33 de la Charte canadienne ne permet pas de suspendre la répartition fédérative des compétences
No full textContrairement à ce qu’ont laissé entendre certains médias, l’arrêt que la Cour suprême du Canada a rendu dans l’affaire Jordan ne contient pas de dissidence. Il s’agit plutôt d’un jugement unanime au sens propre, c’est-à-dire relativement à la disposition de l’affaire, mais consignant dans sa motivation une divergence de vues sur la nécessité d’intégrer des échéances à l’interprétation du droit constitutionnel de l’accusé d’être jugé à l’intérieur d’un délai raisonnable. Le jugement comprend ainsi les motifs concordants de quatre juges sur une formation, en l’occurrence maximale, de neuf. Motifs concordants et dissidents confondus, la présence d’au moins une opinion divergente se serait observée dans 46% des jugements publiés sur la période qui s’est écoulée de 1982 — date de la dernière grande révision constitutionnelle — à 2008. Cela est sans incidence sur la contribution d’un jugement de la Cour suprême à l’état du droit positif et, sans bien sûr exclure la critique, n’est pas censé affaiblir l’autorité reconnue aux tribunaux dans une culture d’État de droit démocratique moderne
Annotated Notes: NDP Leaders Meeting - February 18, 1981
No full textThe following is an edited version of the notes taken by the author at the New Democratic Party (NDP) Leaders’ meeting on Wednesday, February 18, 1981 in Calgary, Alberta. The original hand written notes are available in the archives at the University of Alberta
Four Lenses of Patriation
No full textThe last article, “The Four Lenses of Patriation”, is interpretive rather than descriptive. It deals specifically with how historians, academics, policy-makers, and the general public have come to view patriation. It suggests that there are four lenses through which it can be viewed. These lenses depend on our view of the outcomes and the participants in the project
Was the Supreme Court right to change the law on the right to a speedy trial?
No full textIn R v Jordan, the Supreme Court of Canada held, by a 5-4 majority and over the vigorous disagreement of the concurrence, that criminal prosecutions in which a trial does not conclude by a set deadline will be presumed to breach the right to be tried within a reasonable time, protected by section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The acceptable length of proceedings set out in the decision is of 18 months from the day charges are laid for cases that proceed without a preliminary inquiry, and 30 months otherwise. The Crown can still show that exceptional circumstances outside of its control have arisen and can explain — and excuse — a case taking longer than that, but unless it does so, a stay of proceedings will be the automatic consequence of such delay. Meanwhile, an accused will be able to show that delay below these ceilings is unconstitutionally unreasonable, but only by demonstrating not only that the delay is “markedly” greater than reasonable, but also that he or she diligently sought to have the case heard sooner
Reference Re Supreme Court Act: Atlantic Canada and Regional Considerations in Supreme Court of Canada Appointments
No full text...This paper therefore advances the theory that each non-Quebec “region”, as they are currently recognized, might need at least one appointee each in order to ensure the Court has functioning and legitimacy as a federal and bijural institution. This theory has the added benefit of providing the Governor-in-Council with flexibility in making appointments that meet other roles of the Court, such as adjudicating on Charter rights and aboriginal law
Kahkewistahaw First Nation v Taypotat – Whither Section 25 of the Charter?
No full textThe Supreme Court of Canada has to date delivered eight Charter equality decisions in an Aboriginal context. In the most recent case, Kahkewistahaw First Nation v Taypotat, the Court unanimously dismissed Louis Taypotat’s challenge to his community’s election code requirement that members of the First Nation running for election as Chief or Band Councillor have a Grade 12 education or its equivalent.We contend that the absence of a section 25 analysis in Taypotat was a missed opportunity, particularly because Taypotat is the only section 15(1) decision of the Supreme Court with an Aboriginal government as respondent. In the following part, we review the Court’s approach to section 25 and the potential application of section 25 in Taypotat. We conclude with a plea to litigators and the courts to move section 25 jurisprudence forward
Introduction
No full textThis Special Issue of the Forum is a compilation of articles presented at a Symposium held at the University of Toronto in February 2016 on “The State of Canada’s Constitutional Democracy”. The Symposium was organized by Cheryl Milne (Asper Centre for Constitutional Rights) and Professor Lorraine Weinrib (University of Toronto), and they were later joined by Patricia Paradis (Centre for Constitutional Studies, University of Alberta). Its purpose was to examine the extent to which current Canadian governance is complying with modern constitutional principles.It is the organizers’ hope that the publication of these conference proceedings will broaden and deepen our understanding of the reform projects discussed at the “State of Canada’s Constitutional Democracy” Symposium that lie ahead
Symposium Summary: The State of Canada\u27s Constitutional Democracy
No full textDramatic changes have taken place in recent years at the national level with respect to the day to day functioning of our constitutional democracy. These changes impinge on the separation of powers, the rule of law and the supremacy of the constitution. The David Asper Centre for Constitutional Rights at the University of Toronto partnered with the Centre for Constitutional Studies at the University of Alberta to organize a two day symposium in February 2016, at the Faculty of Law, University of Toronto, designed to bring together a diverse group of academic experts and individuals with experience in public service at high levels, as well as academics with personal experience in governance, to discuss these changes
Renovating Canada\u27s Constitutional Architecture: An Examination of the Government\u27s Democratic Reform Initiatives
No full textThe current federal government was elected on a platform promising significant changes to Canada’s democratic institutions. Among several other reform proposals, the Liberals promised that “2015 will be the last federal election conducted under the first-past-the-post voting system.” To enact this proposal, a special all-party parliamentary committee would be struck to examine options for reform and “within 18 months of forming government,” the Liberals would “bring forward legislation to enact electoral reform.” After the Liberals won the election, Maryam Monsef was appointed as Minister of Democratic Institutions. Her mandate letter from the Prime Minister confirmed the government’s plans to move forward with electoral reform