-
Day Eight: Anna Su
University of Toronto There are many reasons for judges (especially at the highest court) to write separate dissenting opinions. The first, in my view, is that it sets forth clear positions on the major legal issues of the day, ready to be taken on anew in a future judgment. In that sense, it is the
-
Day Seven: Howard Kislowicz
The Disagreement is the Law
-
Day Six: Carissima Mathen
It was a formidable challenge to select only three Supreme Court dissents. To make the choice more manageable, I decided to stick to Charter case law, and to focus on opinions that I personally found persuasive. That left out a number of notable opinions, such as William McIntyre’s uncompromising yet necessary challenges to his colleagues
-
Day Four: Jonathan Maryniuk
I am honoured to be asked to provide three of my favourite Supreme Court of Canada dissents. I enjoyed reading dissents in my free time even before I was even accepted into law school. Picture me: I am in the lunchroom at one of my summer warehouse jobs in the middle of the night.
-
Day Three: Emmett Macfarlane
Among the panoply of difficult constitutional decisions rendered by the Supreme Court of Canada, there are many occasions when the majority of justices provide reasoning that can only be described as less than compelling (some might simply say ‘wrong’). The virtues of dissenting reasons – which, even on a highly consensual court like the Supreme
-
Day Two: Kerri A. Froc
The Power of Saying No
-
It’s That Time of the Year
Announcing the second edition of Double Aspect’s 12 Days of Christmas symposium
-
Vavilov’s Reasonableness Standard: A Legal Hard-Look Review
In my first post on Vavilov, I celebrated the Court for finally bringing some sense to the Canadian law of judicial review. Particularly, I focused on three issues relevant to determining the standard of review: the banishment of jurisdictional questions, the introduction of statutory rights of appeal as a category of correctness review, and the
Double Aspect 