-
Oliphant on Challenge to Charities’ Political Spending Limits
Just a quick announcement: my friend, co-author, and occasional guest Benjamin Oliphant will have a post soon discussing the Charter challenge to the limits the Income Tax Act imposes on the amounts charitable organizations are able to spend on political advocacy (without losing their charitable status). I am looking forward to reading it!
-
The Public Confidence Fairy
Public confidence in the courts cannot be the foundation of judicial independence Judicial independence is often justified, both in the decisions of the courts and in the broader public discourse, by the need to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice. It seems to me that this justification is not compelling. To borrow Paul
-
Why Do the Write Thing?
Sir Geoffrey Palmer and Andrew Butler, both of them former legal academics and current barristers, Sir Geoffrey having also served as Attorney-General and Prime Minister in between, are about to publish a book advocating that New Zealand enact a “written” constitution. They have also set up a Twitter account and a website to both promote the book and
-
Unconstitutional
Thoughts on the constitutionality of the new Supreme Court appointments process In my last post, I argued that the process for appointing Supreme Court judges announced by the federal government last week is not a positive development. It will neither increase the transparency of the appointments nor de-politicize them, while creating an illusion of having done
-
Smoke and Mirrors
The new process for appointing judges to the Supreme Court is nothing to be happy about Last week, the Prime Minister announced a new(-ish) appointments process for judges of the Supreme Court of Canada. The announcement was met with praise by many, and criticism by some. For my part, I am with the critics. Far from being a
-
Constraint and Candour
The case for a constrained judiciary ― but also candour about adjudication At the website of Advocates for the Rule of Law (ARL), Asher Honickman has posted a reply to my post here on “How to Do Constitutional Adjudication” (which was itself a reply to some of his arguments in a previous ARL essay making “The
-
Someone’s Got to Do It
Was the Supreme Court right to change the law on the right to a speedy trial? In my last post, I summarized the Supreme Court’s decision in R. v. Jordan, 2016 SCC 27, in which the Court, by a 5-4 majority and over the vigorous disagreement of the concurrence, held that criminals prosecutions in which a
-
Keeping Time, Time, Time
The Supreme Court changes the meaning of the right to be tried within a reasonable time A couple of weeks ago, the Supreme Court issued a very important, and fairly radical, decision on the “right … to be tried within a reasonable time,” which paragraph 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms grants to “any
-
What’s Constitutional Law, Anyway?
Understandings of what is constitutional law depend on time and place Law is beset with definitional problems. Quite apart from the law’s struggles to define terms external to it, and translation difficulties, 2400 years after Plato, we can even agree about what law is. And it is similarly difficult to define specific legal categories and
-
Not Such a Simple Thing
A divided Supreme Court expands the powers of search incident to arrest A couple of weeks ago, the Supreme Court issued a decision, R. v. Saeed, 2016 SCC 24, that was further evidence of its majority’s expansive views of the police’s powers of search incident to arrest ― and trust in judicially developed checklists to prevent
Double Aspect 