-
Still Keeping It Complicated
The Supreme Court tries to bring more rigour to constitutional interpretation and takes a step towards textualism, but won’t admit it
-
You Read It Here First
The Supreme Court holds that the Charter does not protect corporations against cruel and unusual punishment
-
Activism v Constitution
The federal court rightly holds that the judiciary cannot control Canada’s climate policy
-
Linguistic Nihilism
One common line of attack against textualism—the idea that “the words of a governing text are of paramount concern, and what they convey, in their context, is what the text means (Scalia & Garner, at 56)—is that language is never clear, or put differently, hopelessly vague or ambiguous. Put this way, the task of interpretation
-
Let Us Reason Together
A call for dialogue on constitutional interpretation, free from anti-originalist myths
-
A Proclivity for Plunder
The left and the right are united in wanting to regulate the internet by taking from their enemies and giving to their friends
-
Missing the Forest for the Living Tree
What Lord Sankey actually meant with his living tree metaphor
-
“Purposive” Does Not Equal “Generous”: The Interpretation Act
It is often said in Canada that statutes must be interpreted “purposively” and “generously.” Many cite the federal Interpretation Act’s s.12, which apparently mandates this marriage between purposive and generous interpretation: 12 Every enactment is deemed remedial, and shall be given such fair, large and liberal construction and interpretation as best ensures the attainment of its
-
Just Asking
Should the power over criminal law be transferred to the provinces?
-
What Needs to Be Said
Sometimes people say things that need to be said. These things may make us uncomfortable. They may force us to look in the mirror. They may ask us to really sit and think about our conduct. We might not like to hear these things, but they might start a discussion. Or maybe they will force
Double Aspect 