-
Oliphant on Constitutional Interpretation
Announcing a guest-post by Benjamin Oliphant Just a quick note to announce that Benjamin Oliphant, my esteemed co-author on two articles on the place of originalism in Canada and of many brilliant papers of his own (as well as a busy lawyer in his spare time), will shortly by posting his take on the discussion between Sébastien Grammond,…
-
A Third View on Legislating Two Languages at the SCC
In the last number of days, Professor Grammond and incoming AUT Law School lecturer (and my very generous blogging host) Léonid Sirota have posted thoughtful analyses of whether Parliament can legislate a requirement that judges of the Supreme Court understand French and English without the assistance of translation. Grammond argues yes; Sirota says no. The…
-
Glover on Judicial Bilingualism & the Constitution
Announcing a guest-post by Kate Glover Just a brief note to announce a forthcoming guest-post by Kate Glover, a constitutional law professor at Western, on whether Parliament could constitutionally enact legislation requiring judges appointed to the Supreme Court to be bilingual. Sébastien Grammond rekindled the discussion on this topic with a guest-post over at Administrative Law…
-
Expanding Hatred Again
Don’t expand the Criminal Code’s hate speech provisions. Repeal them! This morning, the federal government has introduced a new bill in Parliament, C-16, that would, if enacted, add “gender identity” and “gender expression” to the definition of “identifiable grounds” used in the advocacy of genocide and hate speech provisions of the Criminal Code. (It would…
-
The Comprehension of “Composition”
Parliament cannot require Supreme Court judges to be bilingual Sébastien Grammond has published a guest-post over at Administrative Law Matters arguing that Parliament could legislate to prohibit the appointment of Supreme Court judges who are not bilingual. It is a bold and interesting argument, and I greatly admire prof. Grammond as a thinker and advocate. Nonetheless,…
-
Bullshit in Sentencing
An ostensibly minimalist, and an unsatisfactory, decision from the Supreme Court In R. v. Safarzadeh-Markhali, 2016 SCC 14, decided last month, the Supreme Court stuck down a provision of the Criminal Code that prevented sentencing judges from crediting more than the time the offender actually served in pre-trial detention against the sentence imposed when the offender had been…
-
Originalism ― The Talk
My remarks on originalism in Canada at the Courts and Politics workshop Yesterday, I spoke about the place of originalism in Canadian constitutional jurisprudence at the Courts and Politics workshop that Kate Puddister and Emmett Macfarlane had convened at the University of Guelph. The whole things was a lot of fun and very educational, not…
-
Some News
An update about my studies, work prospects, and an upcoming conference I have been very silent, of late, and will probably remain so for another week. That’s because in the space of just over five weeks, from late March to this coming Thursday, I’ll have given two talks, moderated a conference panel, defended my JSD…
-
All That History
A historicist, if not quite an originalist, decision from the Supreme Court of Canada Last week, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Daniels v. Canada (Indian Affairs and Northern Development), 2016 SCC 12, holding that Métis and non-status Indians fall within the scope of Parliament’s legislative power over “Indians” provided for in section 91(24) of…
-
State v. Conscience
Freedom of conscience, state authority, and the case of the citizenship oath As I had already mentioned, last week I spoke at a discussion on freedom of conscience that the Runnymede Society organized at McGill on Tuesday. It was a lot of fun, and as always at McGill there were some great questions from the…
Double Aspect 