Constitutional Forum (Journal)
Not a member yet
551 research outputs found
Sort by
THE CASE OF THE MISSING RECORDS: R. V. CAROSELLA
No full textTHE CASE OF THE MISSING RECORDS: R. V. CAROSELL
READING THE PREAMBLE TO THE BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT, 1867
No full textREADING THE PREAMBLE TO THE BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT, 186
THE INDEPENDENCE AND IMPARTIALITY OF PROVINCIAL COURT JUDGES: RAPPORTEUR’S COMMENTS
No full textTHE INDEPENDENCE AND IMPARTIALITY OF PROVINCIAL COURT JUDGES: RAPPORTEUR’S COMMENT
THE CHARTER’S BURDENS: THE RETURN TO THE "PRESUMPTION OF VALIDITY" IN SECTION 7 OF THE CANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS
No full textTHE CHARTER’S BURDENS: THE RETURN TO THE "PRESUMPTION OF VALIDITY" IN SECTION 7 OF THE CANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOM
BLACK V. CHRÉTIEN AND THE CONTROL OF THE ROYAL PREROGATIVE
No full textConrad Black, a prominent publisher and businessman in both Canada and the United Kingdom, submitted his name for one of the peerages to be created for the new-model House of Lords following the House of Lords Act 1999.1 The rights and duties of peers depend entirely upon custom.2 The principal legal distinction of British peers is — or was — their right to sit and vote in Parliament.3 Not all peers however were Lords of Parliament (principally the Irish peers not also possessing another peerage entitling them to a seat), and some Lords of Parliament, the bishops, are not peers.4 Essentially, Black was seeking, and had been promised, a seat in the upper house of the British Parliament
The Truth About Canadian Judicial Activism
No full textThe topic of judicial activism in Canada generates considerable disagreement. At a recent conference, retired Supreme Court of Canada Justice John Major stated that “there is no such thing as judicial activism in Canada.”1 In 2001, speaking in his capacity as the Canadian Alliance’s Justice critic, the current federal Minister of Justice and Attorney General, Vic Toews, told Parliament that the Supreme Court has “engaged in a frenzy of constitutional experimentation that resulted in the judiciary substituting its legal and societal preferences for those made by the elected representatives of the people . . . [producing] legal and constitutional anarchy.”2 One prominent constitutional scholar fears that the debate on judicial activism in Canada has begun to produce excessive judicial deference that allows legislatures and officials to act without scrutiny by the judiciary concerning the effects of state action on vulnerable minorities
MEANING FROM CHAOS: REFLECTIONS ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 — TWO YEARS AFTER
No full textOn 10 September 2002, the Centre for Constitutional Studies sponsored a symposium at the University of Alberta Faculty of Law, entitled “September 11, One Year Later.” At the end of symposium, audience members put questions to the panel, on which I had the privilege of participating. The very last question was along these lines: “Would you say that anything good has come out of the events of September 11?” I shall attempt here to respond once more to that question. But I must take care with my response
THE DUNMORE DEPARTURE: SECTION 1 AND VULNERABLE GROUPS
No full textIn the recent decision Dunmore v. Ontario (A.G.),1 the Supreme Court of Canada held that the complete exclusion of agricultural workers from Ontario’s Labour Relations Act2 was a violation of section 2(d) of the Charter3 that could not be justified under section 1. Dunmore was a novel case; as Bastarache J. noted in the introduction to the majority decision, it represented “the first time” the Court had been called on to review “the total exclusion of an occupational group from a statutory labour relations regime, where that group is not employed by the government and has demonstrated no independent ability to organize.