Your search
Results 933 resources
-
Ashley Smith’s experience in the adult prison system flowed from certain of its systemic features. This article considers whether and how it is possible to reconcile the basic commitments of sentencing law, including the legal aims of punishment, with that systemic portrait. The youth court that ordered Smith’s transfer to adult custody relied upon an idealized conception of adult imprisonment, just as ordinary adult sentencing courts do. Judges purport to stipulate the severity of punishment, but tend not to consider how prison conditions will shape the severity of the sanction. Even where a particular defendant is likely to face unique difficulties in custody, courts tend to take notice in limited and rare ways. Smith’s experience in adult custody challenges us to more clearly identify, and to consider extending, doctrinal sentencing rules that represent a judicial concern with the effects and prospects of imprisonment in particular cases. , L’expérience vécue par Ashley Smith dans le système carcéral pour adultes témoigne de certaines caractéristiques de ce système. Le présent article tente d’établir, d’une part, s’il est possible d’harmoniser les engagements de base des lois régissant la détermination de la peine, y compris les visées légales des sanctions, au système carcéral et, d’autre part, comment arriver à une telle harmonisation entre ces lois et la réalité de ce système. Le tribunal de la jeunesse qui a ordonné le transfert d’Ashley Smith dans un établissement correctionnel pour adultes a eu recours à une conception idéalisée de la détention des adultes, une conception partagée par les tribunaux pour adultes. Les juges prétendent stipuler la sévérité de la peine sans toutefois tenir compte du fait que les conditions de détention accroissent la sévérité de la sanction. Même si un accusé est susceptible d’éprouver des difficultés particulières durant sa détention, les tribunaux ont peu tendance à le remarquer ou à en tenir compte. L’expérience de détention d’Ashley Smith dans un établissement correctionnel pour adultes lance le défi d’identifier plus précisément, voire d’élargir, la doctrine en matière de détermination de la peine témoignant d’une préoccupation judiciaire pour les effets de la détention dans certains cas particuliers.
-
Since the swift passage of the Anti-Terrorism Act in 2015, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) has had the unprecedented and highly controversial authority to take ‘reasonable and proportionate’ measures to reduce threats to Canadian security. While there are some limits to the types of measures CSIS can employ, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act permits the use of measures that would otherwise contravene the laws of Canada or limit a right protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms so long as they are judicially authorized by the Federal Court. As new threats proliferate around the world, it is anticipated that CSIS will increasingly carry out this mandate overseas. Yet review bodies tasked with monitoring CSIS’s use of threat reduction measures (TRMs) report that CSIS has never sought judicial authorization to conduct a TRM. Why? One answer may be that CSIS has concluded that the Charter does not govern actions carried out abroad, and, as such, their extraterritorial conduct falls beyond the reach and oversight of the Federal Court. Whether the Charter applies to CSIS’s overseas conduct ostensibly lies in the Supreme Court of Canada’s leading case on the extraterritorial application of the Charter, R v Hape. This article canvasses domestic and international law, as well as intelligence law theory, to explain why that presumption is wrong. Wrong, not least because the majority opinion in Hape is deeply flawed in its analysis and application of international law. But also, because intelligence operations are so distinguishable from the transnational criminal investigations at issue in Hape, the Court’s findings are inapplicable in the former context. In short, this article demonstrates that applying Hape to the actions of CSIS officers not only leaves their actions beyond the scrutiny of Canadian courts but also creates a significant human rights gap.
-
Evidence — letters rogatory — public policy against extraterritorial applications of US lawMorgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP v. Gauthier (2006), 82 OR (3d) 189 (29 August 2006). Ontario Superior Court of Justice.The applicant MLB was a US law firm carrying on business principally in Philadelphia. It sought an order from the Ontario Superior Court of Justice giving effect to a letter of request issued by the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania. This court sought the assistance of the Ontario court in obtaining document production and testimony from the respondent, Claude Gauthier, a Canadian citizen resident in Ontario.
Explore
Resource type
Topics
- Criminal law (1)
- Equity (1)
- Evidence (1)
- Voyeurism (1)
Publication year
-
Between 1900 and 1999
(212)
-
Between 1910 and 1919
(1)
- 1918 (1)
- Between 1930 and 1939 (5)
- Between 1940 and 1949 (6)
- Between 1950 and 1959 (8)
- Between 1960 and 1969 (14)
- Between 1970 and 1979 (18)
- Between 1980 and 1989 (58)
- Between 1990 and 1999 (102)
-
Between 1910 and 1919
(1)
-
Between 2000 and 2026
(720)
- Between 2000 and 2009 (253)
- Between 2010 and 2019 (304)
- Between 2020 and 2026 (163)
- Unknown (1)