Search
Full bibliography 2,329 resources
-
In this article, I propose a model for understanding the concept of ownership that I call the ‘exclusivity model.’ Like many of the contemporary critics of the ‘bundle of rights’ approach to ownership, I insist that ownership is a legal concept with a well-defined structure. I differ from most of them, however, in the model of ownership that I believe to be at work in property law. Most of these critics propose a model of ownership that emphasizes the owner's right to exclude non-owners from the owned thing as the central defining feature of ownership. I call this the ‘boundary approach’ to highlight its fixation on the owner's power to decide who may cross the boundaries of the owned thing. But this, I argue, makes it impossible for the boundary approach to explain adequately the many subsidiary rights in things that coexist with the rights of owners. Indeed, I argue that when we look more closely at the structure of ownership in property law, its central concern is not the exclusion of all non-owners from the owned thing but, rather, the preservation of the owner's position as the exclusive agenda setter for the owned thing. So long as others – whether they be holders of subsidiary property rights or strangers to the property – act in a way that is consistent with the owner's agenda, they pose no threat to the owner's exclusive position as agenda setter.
-
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.
-
Disclaimer: This summary was generated by AI based on the content of the source document.
-
During the last two decades, the Supreme Court of Canada created and authorized new police powers that are exercised routinely. For example, the Court authorized police officers to stop motor vehicles at random, detain individuals for investigative purposes, and carry out preventive frisk searches on people. The Court stated that judges can use the “ancillary powers doctrine” to create new police powers that fill legislative gaps.
-
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.
Explore
Resource type
- Blog Post (6)
- Book (798)
- Book Section (225)
- Case (236)
- Conference Paper (5)
- Dictionary Entry (81)
- Document (2)
- Encyclopedia Article (2)
- Journal Article (947)
- Magazine Article (2)
- Newspaper Article (2)
- Preprint (2)
- Presentation (1)
- Report (16)
- Thesis (3)
- 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)
- Equity (1)
- Evidence (16)
- 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 1700 and 1799
(8)
-
Between 1700 and 1709
(1)
- 1701 (1)
- Between 1760 and 1769 (4)
-
Between 1770 and 1779
(1)
- 1777 (1)
-
Between 1790 and 1799
(2)
- 1797 (2)
-
Between 1700 and 1709
(1)
-
Between 1800 and 1899
(14)
-
Between 1810 and 1819
(1)
- 1812 (1)
- Between 1820 and 1829 (2)
- Between 1830 and 1839 (2)
-
Between 1840 and 1849
(1)
- 1849 (1)
- Between 1870 and 1879 (2)
-
Between 1880 and 1889
(1)
- 1880 (1)
- Between 1890 and 1899 (5)
-
Between 1810 and 1819
(1)
-
Between 1900 and 1999
(466)
-
Between 1900 and 1909
(2)
- 1908 (2)
- Between 1910 and 1919 (2)
- Between 1920 and 1929 (2)
- Between 1930 and 1939 (8)
- Between 1940 and 1949 (12)
- Between 1950 and 1959 (14)
- Between 1960 and 1969 (32)
- Between 1970 and 1979 (41)
- Between 1980 and 1989 (145)
- Between 1990 and 1999 (208)
-
Between 1900 and 1909
(2)
-
Between 2000 and 2026
(1,840)
- Between 2000 and 2009 (430)
- Between 2010 and 2019 (713)
- Between 2020 and 2026 (697)
- Unknown (1)