Your search

Federal elections between 2008 and 2019 saw a great of volatility in Quebec, with important consequences for election outcomes. The surge in New Democratic Party (NDP) support in Quebec led the party to official opposition, while Liberal gains in 2011 led the party to a majority government, and Bloc Québécois gains in 2019 helped to reduce the Liberals to a minority. To what extent was this volatility driven by voters switching parties and to what degree was it driven by voters entering and exiting the electorate? This article uses ecological inference based on riding-level data to examine the dynamics of party competition in Quebec from 2008 to 2019. We show that while voter mobilization mattered to volatility, vote switching was the important driver of changing party fortunes during this period., RésuméLes élections fédérales entre 2008 et 2019 ont connu une grande volatilité au Québec, avec des conséquences importantes sur les résultats électoraux. La poussée du soutien du NPD au Québec a conduit le parti à l'opposition officielle, tandis que les gains des libéraux en 2011 ont conduit le parti à un gouvernement majoritaire et que les gains du Bloc Québécois en 2019 ont contribué à réduire les libéraux à une minorité. Dans quelle mesure cette volatilité est-elle due au fait que les électeurs changent de parti et dans quelle mesure est-elle due au fait que les électeurs entrent et sortent de l'électorat ? Cet article utilise l'inférence écologique basée sur des données au niveau des circonscriptions pour examiner la dynamique de la concurrence entre les partis au Québec de 2008 à 2019. Nous montrons que, bien que la mobilisation des électeurs ait joué un rôle dans la volatilité, le changement de parti a été le principal moteur de l'évolution de la situation des partis au cours de cette période.

This article examines, from the standpoint of corrective justice, three basic situations of causal uncertainty in the law of negligence. In the first situation the uncertainty is about which of the possible defendants wrongfully caused the injury. In the second situation the uncertainty is whether the injury resulted from the innocent or the wrongful aspect of the defendant’s activity. In the third situation the uncertainty is whether the defendant’s negligence failed to prevent the materialisation of an independently existing risk. In viewing the parties as the doer and the sufferer of the same injustice, corrective justice confirms the centrality of causation to negligence liability. The article shows, nonetheless, how these three situations of uncertainty can be resolved within the corrective justice framework. Moreover, what emerges from the corrective justice analysis is that causal uncertainty is not a homogeneous problem; its solution varies with the kind of situation in which the uncertainty appears.

Polls have had a number of high-profile misses in recent elections. We review the current polling environment, the performance of polls in a historical context, the mechanisms of polling error, and the causes of several recent misses in Britain and the US. Contrary to conventional wisdom, polling errors have been constant over time, although the level of error has always been substantially beyond that implied by stated margins of error. Generally, there is little evidence that voters lying about their vote intention (so-called ‘shy’ voters) is a substantial cause of polling error. Instead, polling errors have most commonly resulted from problems with representative samples and weighting, undecided voters breaking in one direction, and to a lesser extent late swings and turnout models. We conclude with a discussion of future directions for polling both in terms of fixing the problems identified and new approaches to understanding public opinion.

The traditional requirement of proof of causation on a balance of probabilities is being challenged, in cases ranging from toxic pollution to medical negligence, by tort plaintiffs whose success depends on acceptance of "probabilistic" rather than "particularistic" evidence based on epidemiological and other statistical data falling below 50% probability. Courts in various jurisdictions have experimented with devices such as reversal of onus of proof against negligent defendants, recognition of mere risk of injury as a cause of action and damages proportioned to the degree of probability or chance. Recent pronouncements by the House of Lords oppose this trend.

There are two different models of judicial decision-making that have been illustrated in American legal thinking. In this article the author thoroughly examines those models and illustrates the workings of each. First, the author discusses the adjudication of disputes model and examines its purpose, as well as its key elements and characteristics. He also examines its limits, namely the obstacle of polycentricity. The author then discusses the characteristics of the judicial-policy-maker model, as well as the various problems with which it is associated. In conclusion, the author suggests that although the judicial process in Canada fits neither model exactly, it is more or less organized along adjudicative lines.

This article reviews Canadian cases involving claims for misfeasance in a public office that have been decided since the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Odhavji Estate v. Woodhouse. Three main trends are apparent. First, plaintiffs who claim in misfeasance have some procedural advantages, including an expanded scope of discovery and greater resistance to defendants’ motions to strike. Second, the misfeasance tort serves an “ombudsman” function, tainting the defendant’s conduct as abusive and providing a greater degree of psychological vindication to plaintiffs. Finally, in some limited circumstances, misfeasance claims may have a better chance of success than negligence claims, as they dispense with the somewhat troublesome requirements of proximity and policy.

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.

Linguistic rights in New Brunswick have progressed since the enactment of the Official Languages of New Brunswick Act of 1969. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms has caused the entrenchment of some linguistic guarantees in the Constitution and has provided for judicial enforcement. Collective rights have also been given legislative sanction through the passing, in 1981, of An Act Recognizing the Equality of the Two Official Linguistic Communities in New Brunswick, and new legislation to replace the 1969 Act has now been proposed in a recent government-sponsored study.

La progression des droits linguistiques au Nouveau-Brunswick dans une perspective historique globale Gatan Migneault* the evolution of The linguistic situation in New Brunswick is unique in the Canadian context. Not only does the province currently offer one of the most generous and progressive legal regimes for its French-speaking linguistic minority, this regime proceeded in the … Continued

Disclaimer: This summary was generated by AI based on the content of the source document.