Your search
Results 933 resources
-
Disclaimer: This summary was generated by AI based on the content of the source document.
-
Disclaimer: This summary was generated by AI based on the content of the source document.
-
Disclaimer: This summary was generated by AI based on the content of the source document.
-
Disclaimer: This summary was generated by AI based on the content of the source document.
-
In Canada (A.G.) v. Bedford, the Supreme Court of Canada invalidated three prostitution-related provisions of the Criminal Code on grounds of overbreadth and gross disproportionality. The implications of Bedford go well beyond the particular context of sex work and even of criminal law. First, the Court held that the three constitutional norms against overbreadth, arbitrariness, and gross disproportionality are distinct from each other rather than aspects of a single norm against overbreadth. Second, the Court held that a Charter applicant could establish a violation of section 7 by showing that a law is overbroad, arbitrary, or grossly disproportionate in its impact on the life, liberty, or security of only one person and that the effectiveness of the law in achieving its policy objectives was not relevant to these norms. There are some difficulties in understanding this highly individualistic approach to section 7, and those difficulties lead to the third implication. By deferring any consideration of the effectiveness of the law to the question of whether it is a proportional limit on a section 7 right, the Court may be indicating a willingness to do something it has never done before: recognize an infringement of a section 7 right as a justified limit under section 1. The Court’s clarification of the relationship between the norms against overbreadth, arbitrariness, and gross disproportionality is welcome, but its individualistic articulation of those norms is difficult to understand and its suggestion that section 7 violations may now be easier to save under section 1 is troubling.
-
Disclaimer: This summary was generated by AI based on the content of the source document.
-
The Agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States of America for cooperation in the examination of refugee status claims from nationals of third countries (Safe Third Country Agreement) has been subject to criticism since its adoption. Aimed at addressing asylum shopping, the agreement prevents asylum seekers, who have transited through one country, from applying for asylum in the other, subject to certain exceptions. The fact that the agreement applies only to land border ports of entry has led to an increase in irregular entries into Canada, particularly since 2017. The agreement has been the subject of numerous legal challenges. Against this backdrop, the authors analyze the implementation of the agreement in Canadian law and the issues it raises. They argue that the agreement is counterproductive, as if fails to effectively promote the orderly processing of refugee claims from the United States. They also examine the historical background of the numerous legal challenges to the agreement, including the latest Federal Court decision of 2020 which found that the agreement violates section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
-
Disclaimer: This summary was generated by AI based on the content of the source document.
-
Disclaimer: This summary was generated by AI based on the content of the source document.
-
Disclaimer: This summary was generated by AI based on the content of the source document.
-
Judges are obliged to follow the law, including by imposing mandatory minimum sentences. This can create a moral dilemma. Judges who justify punishment based on its utility in reducing crime may believe that minimum sentences are pointlessly harsh because they do not enhance public protection. Judges who justify punishment based on retributivist theory may feel that mandatory minimum sentences are excessive and therefore unjust. This paper contends that in their effort to impose just and useful sentences, judges tend to seek out and use available legal tools to reduce perceived unfairness. Statutory interpretation, the use of the principle of totality in multiple count prosecutions, and the selective deployment of sentencing tools have all been used to this end. The author contends that striving to constrain the impact of minimum sentences in this way does not corrupt the administration of justice. Instead it is a legitimate, predictable and inevitable outcome.
-
Disclaimer: This summary was generated by AI based on the content of the source document.
-
Rendered in December 2019, the Vavilov decision sets the contemporary analytical framework for the judicial review of an administrative decision on the merits. On this occasion, the Supreme Court expressed the desire to add a certain degree of certainty and consistency to this field of law. This article focuses on the new approach’s propensity to achieve that goal. The analysis begins with the observation that there exists a connection between the instability that has historically characterized the law of judicial review and the failure of previous approaches to adequately guide reviewing courts in the fulfillment of their mission, which consists of balancing the rule of law and legislative supremacy. In light of earlier case law, the author concludes that the Vavilov decision offers the prospect of greater certainty in determining the applicable standard of review, but that the risk of instability remains with respect to the application of the reasonableness standard. Indeed, while the Supreme Court’s guidance in this regard generally reflects a concern to alleviate the tension underlying the relationship between rule of law and legislative supremacy principles, some of the majority justices’ assertions, namely that certain statutory provisions “relating to the scope of a decision maker’s authority” may involve only one interpretation, may weaken the self-discipline of reviewing courts on which judicial deference is based.
-
Disclaimer: This summary was generated by AI based on the content of the source document.
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)