Your search
Results 1,840 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.
-
According to police-reported data, impaired driving killed as many as 155 people in Canada in 2019 (88 impaired drivers1 and 67 other road users) and injured 540.2 By comparison, all other criminal offences causing death excluding homicide resulted in the deaths of 108 people in 2019. Furthermore, a 2013 study for Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) Canada estimated that the total social costs associated with impaired driving were $20.6 billion (Pitel and Solomon 2013). [...]before cannabis became legal, police services in Canada were already stopping an increasing number of drug-impaired drivers (Moreau 2019; Perreault 2016).3 So, to coincide with legalization, the Government of Canada implemented measures to fight drug-impaired driving. When collection of comparable data began in 1986, police reported 577 incidents per 100,000 population. [...]the early 2000s, this rate declined by an average of 5.5% each year, before stabilizing at about 250 incidents per 100,000 population during the 2000s.
-
"Police enforce the law, but they must also obey it. Statutes circumscribe how law enforcement officers conduct their work. At the same time, Canadian courts have handed police many powers to stop, search, and otherwise investigate people in the pursuit of public safety and crime prevention. Ancillary Police Powers in Canada explains what these common-law police powers are, how they came to be, and, crucially, what the potential dangers are in their expanding scope. Why are Mr. Big sting operations used in this country? What is the difference between police duty and lawful authority? Should the Supreme Court rescind powers when the police tactics they enable become controversial? This nuanced book surveys the evolution, application, and future of judge-made police powers. The authors, experts in their fields, bring historical perspective, critical legal theory, and empirical analysis to an issue that is fundamental to constitutional protection from state interference with individual liberty."-- Provided by publisher.
-
This Article advances the comparative constitutional literature by examining the exercise of remedial discretion in rights litigation. It compares how the Supreme Court of Canada and the Constitutional Court of South Africa remedy unconstitutional legislation under their respective, relatively new, bills of rights. It uses an internal legal approach and, rejecting universalism and convergence, it pays attention to difference in constitutional texts. By reporting remedial practices and studying the written and unwritten factors that judges identify as conditioning their remedial determinations, the Article studies the significant gap between authoritative text and practice. In a warning for those who draft bills of rights, who rely on their texts to forecast judicial practice, or who simply aim to delineate and understand the exercise of judicial power under bills of rights, judges’ discussion reveals that the scope of action they perceive as legitimate may differ from what a rights instrument’s text implies. This gap has implications for efforts to classify forms of judicial review as strong-form or weak-form, as it may reduce the effective distance between different models as they appear on paper. The Article identifies shifting and contradictory views about reading-in versus invalidating legislation, and about immediate versus delayed orders. Based on its comparison of judicial remedial practices, the Article flags the unavoidable uncertainty of applying a bill of rights to legislation. It interprets the practices of the two countries’ highest courts as embodying a preference for a judicial posture of legislative engagement over one of constitutional enforcement. This conception of the judicial role emerges from similarities in practice, despite differences in the authorizing constitutional texts. The Article establishes a firm basis for normative evaluation of the legitimacy of judicial remedial discretion exercised with a view to engaging the democratic branches of government.
-
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.
-
This chapter is about the interpretation of section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Section 1 allows ‘limits’ to constitutional rights insofar as they are reasonable and justified in a free and democratic society. It asks the state for moral justification when a right has been infringed by state action. Moral justification has formal and substantive aspects; therefore the application of section 1 deploys a formal framework of proportionality nestled within a thin conception of liberal democratic political morality. The chapter also addresses the relative moral importance of the notion of ‘rights’, as well as the relevance of institutional considerations. It concludes that the section 1 framework follows a standard model of moral justification and cannot be significantly improved upon.
Explore
Resource type
- Blog Post (6)
- Book (579)
- Book Section (188)
- Case (236)
- Conference Paper (3)
- Dictionary Entry (73)
- Document (2)
- Encyclopedia Article (2)
- Journal Article (731)
- Magazine Article (2)
- Newspaper Article (2)
- Preprint (2)
- Presentation (1)
- Report (11)
- Thesis (1)
- Web Page (1)
Topics
- Aboriginal law (4)
- Aboriginal peoples (2)
- Abuse of process (5)
- Access to information (1)
- Administrative law (11)
- Admissibility (1)
- Appeals (5)
- Arrest (2)
- Bankruptcy and insolvency (6)
- Banks (1)
- Canada (2)
- Charge to jury (2)
- Charter of Rights (31)
- Child and family services (1)
- Choice of forum (1)
- Civil liability (1)
- Civil procedure (4)
- Communications law (1)
- Constitutional law (50)
- Contracts (2)
- Copyright (8)
- Copyright Pentalogy (5)
- Costs (1)
- Court having jurisdiction (1)
- Courts (8)
- Criminal law (87)
- Crown law (1)
- Custody (4)
- Declaration of invalidity (1)
- Discoverability (1)
- Division of powers (4)
- Evidence (15)
- Expropriation (2)
- Extraterritoriality (1)
- Family law (7)
- Fiduciary duty (1)
- Financial institutions (1)
- Fitness to stand trial (1)
- Habeas corpus (1)
- Human rights (1)
- Immigration (3)
- Impaired driving (2)
- Income tax (4)
- Informer privilege (1)
- Infringement (2)
- Insurance (2)
- Intellectual property (8)
- Judicial review (5)
- Jurisdiction (5)
- Labour relations (1)
- Limitation of actions (1)
- Mediation (1)
- Negligence (1)
- Obligation of loyalty (1)
- Obstructing justice (1)
- Occupational health and safety (1)
- Open court principle (1)
- Patents (1)
- Prerogative writs (1)
- Prescription (1)
- Private international law (2)
- Property (1)
- Prosecutorial immunity (1)
- Provincial offences (1)
- Publication bans (1)
- Real property (1)
- Right to security of person (1)
- Sale of goods (1)
- Securities (2)
- Sentencing (9)
- Sex workers (1)
- Sexual assault (6)
- Status of persons (1)
- Statutes (1)
- Taxation (6)
- Telecommunications (1)
- Torts (1)
- Trafficking in persons (1)
- Transportation law (2)
- Treaty rights (1)
- Trial (5)
- Voyeurism (1)
- Young persons (2)
Publication year
-
Between 2000 and 2026
- Between 2000 and 2009 (430)
- Between 2010 and 2019 (713)
- Between 2020 and 2026 (697)