1,720,961 research outputs found
Rights Review and the Institutional Roles in Sentencing: A Study of Harper-Era Mandatory Minimum Sentences
Full text linkDuring the Harper-era (2006 to 2015), the federal government actively pursued a policy agenda focused on tough on crime criminal justice policy. Much of the Harper government’s criminal justice policy focused on sentencing, including the introduction of new and increasing of existing mandatory minimum sentences (MMS). Sentencing policy is unique as it brings together Parliament’s constitutional jurisdiction over sentencing, judicial discretion in sentencing those convicted of crimes, and the standards of Charter-protected legal rights of the criminal defendant. Existing literature on MMS criticizes these sentencing provisions for being vulnerable to Charter challenges, particularly under s. 12 of the Charter. Through the analysis of the parliamentary debates and committee hearings of the policymaking process for Harper government enacted MMS, and the subsequent legal decisions of these provisions being challenged in court on Charter standards, this study examines the role that the Charter played in the policymaking process of Harper government enacted MMS, how these policies have fared in Canadian courts, and the institutional roles in sentencing. This project finds that Parliament’s role in rights review is weak due to the strength of the executive. Additionally, courts have found these laws unconstitutional at a significantly higher rate than previous decades. Finally, despite the distinctive roles each institution has in sentencing, the results indicate a lack of respect for these roles from the legislature and the judiciary
Inviting judicial review: A comprehensive analysis of Canadian appellate court reference cases
No full textCanadian reference questions allow the executive (both federal and provincial) to obtain an advisory judicial opinion from a provincial appellate court or the Supreme Court of Canada on the constitutionality of government legislation, either proposed or enacted, in the absence of a live legal dispute. The reference procedure allows governments to insert the courts and the judiciary into often highly contentious and normative partisan debates. The process of reference questions in Canada raises several heretofore unexplored questions, such as: Why would political actors delegate a portion of their decision making power to the courts in these episodes? Is government participation in reference cases evidence of strategic litigation? This project is driven by the central question: why do governments ask reference questions? In answering this research question, this study argues that the use of Canadian reference power cases demonstrates a delegation of decision-making that offers governments several unique advantages: initiating a reference provides governments a means to deal with political controversies, references can help governments deal with issues associated with federalism, references provide the ability to overcome time/resource limitations associated with routine litigation, references provide the opportunity to benefit from the institutional authority of the courts, and references allow governments to take advantage of the opportunity to initiate abstract review. This analysis demonstrates that the actual outcome of a reference case – win or lose – is almost secondary to the political benefits that can be attained from simply involving the courts through the reference power. This dissertation makes a significant contribution to the field through a novel analysis of all Canadian appellate court reference cases from 1875 to 2014, which is complemented with interview data and archival research.Au Canada, les renvois relatifs permettent l'exécutif (fédéral ou provincial) d'obtenir, en absence d'un litige réel, un avis juridique consultatif sur la constitutionnalité d'une législation gouvernementale, soit proposée ou adoptée, d'une cour d'appel provinciale ou la Cour suprême du Canada. Le processus de renvois relatifs permet aux gouvernements d'impliquer les tribunaux et le système judiciaire dans des débats partisans, qui sont souvent très controversées et normatives. Ce processus suscite plusieurs questions jusqu'ici inexplorées : Pourquoi les acteurs politiques délégueraient-ils une partie de leur pouvoir décisionnel aux tribunaux ? La participation gouvernementale dans les renvois relatifs est-elle preuve du litige stratégique ? Ce projet est axé sur une question principale: pourquoi les gouvernements soumettent-ils des renvois relatifs ? Cette étude démontre que le pouvoir de demander un renvoi relatif est en effet une délégation du pouvoir décisionnel qui confère aux gouvernements des avantages uniques. Cette délégation fournit aux gouvernements un moyen d'éviter des controverses politiques, aide ceux-ci à résoudre les questions liées au fédéralisme, les permet de surmonter les limitations du temps ou des ressources associées aux litiges courants, offre la possibilité de bénéficier de l'autorité institutionnelle des tribunaux et permet aux gouvernements de profiter de l'occasion pour lancer un contrôle abstrait. Cette analyse démontre que le résultat d'un renvoi relatif – soit gagné ou perdu - est secondaire aux avantages politiques atteints par la participation des tribunaux. Cette thèse apporte une contribution importante à l'étude de la question grâce à une analyse innovatrice de tous les renvois relatifs aux Cours d'appel du Canada de 1875 à 2014 et est complétée par des données d'entrevue et les données d'archives
What We’ve Got Here Is Failure to Cooperate: Provincial Governments and the Canadian Reference Power
No full textThe Canadian reference power provides provincial and federal governments with the ability to seek an advisory opinion from an appellate court on virtually any matter, including the policies of other governments. Because of the great latitude in which governments can wield the reference power, many governments have done so strategically. While the federal reference power was initially created to allow the federal government to oversee the provinces, provincial governments have deployed their own reference power to effectively challenge and resist the actions of the federal government and as a result, have essentially co-opted the original purpose of the reference power. Relying on a systematic analysis of provincially initiated reference cases, including the recent disputes over the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act (carbon tax) references, this study demonstrates how the reference power can be a political and strategic tool for subnational governments in a manner that is distinct from the federal government. References can provide provincial governments a means to protect and articulate provincial interests, to voice opposition to the actions of other governments and in some instances, to encourage or reinvigorate negotiation with federal partners. However, this article also demonstrates the limits of the reference power and the use of litigation as a political tool. The reference cases examined here demonstrate that litigation alone cannot force cooperative outcomes.Au Canada, le pouvoir de renvoi confère au gouvernement fédéral et aux gouvernements des provinces la possibilité de se tourner vers une cour d’appel pour obtenir un avis consultatif sur n’importe quelle question ou presque, y compris sur les politiques d’autres gouvernements. En raison de la grande latitude dont disposent les gouvernements pour exercer leur pouvoir de renvoi, nombreux sont ceux qui l’ont fait de manière stratégique. Bien que le pouvoir de renvoi ait d’abord été créé pour permettre au gouvernement fédéral de superviser les provinces, ces dernières ont invoqué leur propre pouvoir de renvoi pour contester les mesures du gouvernement fédéral et y résister de façon efficace. Elles ont donc, essentiellement, détourné l’objectif initial du pouvoir de renvoi. La présente étude se fonde sur une analyse systématique des dossiers de renvoi lancés par les provinces, y compris les litiges récents portant sur la Loi sur la tarification de la pollution causée par les gaz à effet de serre (taxe sur le carbone) pour démontrer que le pouvoir de renvoi peut être un outil politique et stratégique aux mains des administrations infranationales, ce qui n’est pas le cas pour le gouvernement fédéral. Les renvois représentent, pour les gouvernements des provinces, une façon de protéger et d’énoncer clairement leurs intérêts, de manifester leur opposition quant aux mesures prises par d’autres gouvernements et, dans certains cas, de renforcer les négociations avec leurs partenaires fédéraux. Le présent article démontre aussi les limites du pouvoir de renvoi et de son utilisation à des fins politiques. Les dossiers de renvoi étudiés permettent de constater que le recours aux tribunaux ne peut, à lui seul, forcer la collaboration
A Question They Can't Refuse? Canadian Reference Questions and Judicial Independence
No full textThis paper addresses one aspect of the very important but understudied Canadian reference power. More specifically, it examines the frequency at which Canadian appellate courts refuse to answer all questions submitted in a reference case and under what conditions courts refuse to answer through analysis of an original dataset of all Canadian appellate court reference cases from 1949 to 2017. Addressing this question of how often and under what conditions courts refuse to answer reference questions is central to understanding how reference power operates, as the statutory foundation for the power does not provide courts any discretion to refuse questions submitted by the executive. This lack of discretion and the reference power itself, raise several concerns for judicial independence. This paper considers the implications for judicial independence brought on by the reference power. This paper argues that courts should have the power to refuse to answer questions that are considered inappropriate to safeguard the independence of the judiciary when participating in the extrajudicial function of reference cases
The RCMP's Mr. Big: An independence and accountability case study
Full text linkEffective democratic policing relies on a balance between independence - from direct political influence, and accountability. In Canada, the web of accountability includes answering to the executive, via reporting to the legislature through a cabinet minister, and oversight from various governmental institutions (such as courts) and non-governmental bodies (such as the media and the public). This thesis explores the relationship between police independence and accountability in the context of the RCMP's "Mr. Big" undercover operations. Through an analysis of Mr. Big cases, newspaper articles covering these investigations, and any statements made by elected officials regarding the use of Mr. Big, this study examines the nature and strength of these traditional methods of police accountability, while at the same time, keeping in mind the necessity for the independence of the police. This thesis provides policy recommendations for improving accountability for the Mr. Big technique
Recommended from our members
Seeking the court's advice ::the politics of the Canadian reference power /
No full text"Can Parliament legalize same-sex marriage? Can Quebec unilaterally secede from Canada? Can the federal government create a national firearms registry? Each of these questions is contentious and deeply political, and each was addressed by a court in a reference case, not by elected policy makers. Reference cases allow governments to obtain an advisory opinion from a court without a live dispute and opposing litigants. There are few, if any, parameters on what governments can ask courts in these cases, and governments often wield this power strategically. Through a reference case, elected officials can insert the courts and the judiciary into political debates that can be both contentious and normative. With novel insight and analysis, Kate Puddister argues that judicial review can help elected policy makers achieve political ends, beyond the legal clarification provided by a reference decision. Seeking the Court's Advice is the first in-depth study of the reference power, drawing on a comprehensive assessment of over two hundred reference cases from 1875 to 2017. Puddister demonstrates that the actual outcome of a reference case - win or lose - is often secondary to the political benefits that can be attained from relying on courts through the reference power."--Page 4 de la couverture
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Full text linkThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
Recommended from our members
Seeking the Court's Advice ::The Politics of the Canadian Reference Power /
No full textCan Parliament legalize same-sex marriage? Can Quebec unilaterally secede from Canada? Can the federal government create a national firearms registry? Each of these questions is contentious and deeply political, and each was addressed by a court in a reference case, not by elected policy makers. Reference cases allow governments to obtain an advisory opinion from a court without a live dispute and opposing litigants - and governments often wield this power strategically. Through a reference case, elected officials can insert the courts and the judiciary into political debates that can be both contentious and normative. Seeking the Court's Advice is the first in-depth study of the reference power, drawing on over two hundred reference cases from 1875 to 2017. With novel insight and analysis, Kate Puddister demonstrates that the actual outcome of a reference case - win or lose - is often secondary to the political benefits that can be attained from relying on courts through the reference power
Variations on the Author
Full text link“Variations on the Author” discusses two of Eduardo Coutinho’s recent films (Um Dia na Vida, from 2010, and Últimas Conversas, posthumously released in 2015) and their contribution to the general question of documentary authorship. The director’s filmography is characterized by a consistent yet self-effacing form of authorial self-inscription: Coutinho often features as an interviewer that rather than express opinions propels discourses; an interviewer that is good at listening. This mode of self-inscription characterizes him as an author who is not expressive but who is nonetheless markedly present on the screen. In Um Dia na Vida, however, Coutinho is completely absent form the image, while Últimas Conversas, on the contrary, includes a confessional prologue that moves the director from the margins to the center of his films. This article examines the ways in which these works stand out in the filmography of a director who offers new insights into the notion of cinematic authorship
- …
