Your search
Results 713 resources
-
Ontario residents are more likely to have a dispute concerning a familial relationship than any other type of serious legal problem.¹ The family dispute resolution process has evolved considerably over the past few decades, but the pace of change has been frustratingly slow, with many sound reports and recommendations for reform ignored, resulting in continuing unaddressed concerns about the family justice system. Many of those embroiled in these often traumatic, life-altering disputes have difficulties gaining access to the justice system and must proceed without adequate legal advice and assistance. The 2010 Law Commission of Ontario Report on the ‘broken’ family
-
"There is a serious access to justice problem in Canada. The civil and family justice system is too complex, too slow and too expensive. It is too often incapable of producing just outcomes that are proportional to the problems brought to it or reflective of the needs of the people it is meant to serve. While there are many dedicated people trying hard to make it work and there have been many reform efforts, the system continues to lack coherent leadership, institutional structures that can design and implement change, and appropriate coordination to ensure consistent and cost effective reform. Major change is needed. This report has three purposes: to promote a broad understanding of what we mean by access to justice and of the access to justice problem facing our civil and family justice system; to identify and promote a new way of thinking 'a culture shift' to guide our approach to reform; and to provide an access to justice roadmap for real improvement"-- Executive summary.
-
Police officers often leave the scene of many domestic dispute calls, unable to collect evidence needed to lay charges against the accused. They may find the residence in order, no visible signs of injury, and denial/refusal of all parties to provide statements to the police. Police officers may be called to respond to couples with repeated calls to emergency response, leaving without evidence on numerous occasions. As a result, many police officers may go to calls with preconceived notions about the risks and dynamics in intimate partner relationships, potentially impacting the kind of intervention used. Based on analysis of 1,032 domestic dispute files in Fredericton, NB, this paper explores police officer intervention before and after training on responding to intimate partner violence. It compares formal intervention, such as charges and arrests; collection of evidence, including written and oral statements from victim(s) and witness(es); and informal strategies used by police officers who respond to the scene of a domestic dispute, such as temporary separation of victim and accused, providing transportation to another residence, and contacting a shelter on behalf of the victim or accused.
-
"This is a reference tool for criminal law practitioners on section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees the right to a trial within a reasonable period of time. It discusses key cases and topics of interest."-- Provided by publisher.
-
The actio libera in causa doctrine, as originally formulated by various Enlightenment philosophers, concerns the imputation of responsibility to actors for actions unfree in themselves, but free in their causes. Like our Enlightenment counterparts, contemporary philosophers of criminal law, as well as most Western legal systems (both common law and civil), allow that persons can be responsible for acts that are not free when performed, provided they were free in their causes. The actio libera doctrine allows us to impute unfree actions to persons, provided they were responsible for causing the conditions of unfreedom that characterizes those actions when performed. This doctrine seems to be instantiated in a great many actual legal practices. But I argue that we must distinguish between two importantly different understandings of the doctrine itself and its application in law. On the one hand, the actio libera doctrine allows us to waive the voluntariness requirement that is generally needed for criminal liability. On the other hand, it disallows defendants to appeal to defences they would otherwise be entitled to use to block liability, if they culpably created the conditions of their own defence. The first case involves rules of imputation, while the second concerns culpability, and justifying the actio libera doctrine therefore faces different challenges in the two cases.
Explore
Resource type
- Blog Post (1)
- Book (260)
- Book Section (107)
- Case (6)
- Conference Paper (2)
- Dictionary Entry (18)
- Encyclopedia Article (1)
- Journal Article (308)
- Newspaper Article (1)
- Preprint (2)
- Report (5)
- Thesis (1)
- Web Page (1)
Topics
- Administrative law (2)
- Canada (2)
- Constitutional law (1)
- Copyright (5)
- Copyright Pentalogy (5)
- Intellectual property (5)
- Judicial review (2)
- Securities (1)