-
Day Four: Michael Plaxton
Professor of Law, University of Saskatchewan Many thanks to Leonid for inviting me to participate. I have focused on a few cases drawn from the substantive criminal law canon, picking out those which I think raise special concerns about the relationship between the courts and Parliament. Fa-la-la-la-la…. R v Jobidon, [1991] 2 SCR 714 Strictly speaking,…
-
Day Three: Asher Honickman
Partner at Matthews Abogado LLP in Toronto and founder of Advocates for the Rule of Law, a legal think tank The Double Aspect bloggers, Leonid Sirota and Mark Mancini, have kindly asked me to provide my list of the five worst Supreme Court of Canada decisions in the modern era. I am presenting my list…
-
Day Two: Bruce Pardy
Professor of Law, Queen’s University R v Oakes, [1986] 1 SCR 103 The Supreme Court’s decision in Oakes may have seemed innocent enough at the time but it is where the trouble begins: the Supreme Court’s assertion of the authority to decide questions of social policy, the scourge of proportionality, and the erosion of the…
-
Day One: Joanna Baron
National Director, Runnymede Society As somebody whose Christmas spirit animal, on a sanguine day, is the Grinch, I couldn’t co-sign more on Mark and Leonid’s brilliant idea to celebrate the festive season with a fortnight of piling-on to the highest court in the land. So, without further ado, five of the SCC’s decisions that either…
-
Double Aspect’s Twelve Days of Christmas
Announcing a riotous blogging symposium for the festive season
-
R v Boudreault: Parliament’s Cross to Bear
The rule of law does not countenance the frequent use of suspended declarations.
-
Not This Way
The trouble with a proposal for “a Canadian originalism”
-
Can’t Take It
Can the police seize a computer (without searching it) if only one of its co-owners consents?
-
Statutory Interpretation in Admin Law and the Supreme Court’s Trilogy
Over on Professor Daly’s blog Administrative Law Matters, Professor Audrey Macklin wrote what I would characterize as a confessional: an admission that the law of judicial review in Canada may be beyond repair. What Prof. Macklin proposes, in light of this realization, is a renewed focus on the principles of statutory interpretation, rather than a…
-
The Administrative Law “Trilogy”: The Stare Decisis Trap
This post originally appeared on Advocates for the Rule of Law. This week, the Supreme Court of Canada finally heard the consolidated appeals in Bell/NFL and Vavilov. ARL, expertly represented by Adam Goldenberg, put forward our submissions on the matter, which focus on a return to the basis of the law of judicial review: its…
