Your search
Results 160 resources
-
Since the coming into force of the Youth Protection Act (YPA), the Court of Québec (Youth Division) has only issued a small number of decisions declaring that the rights of a child have been violated. Notwithstanding the foregoing, children’s rights violations continue to occur. Considering that enforcement of children’s rights is critical to the YPA, it being closely tied to the legislation’s objective, the author examines these type of decisions by analyzing jurisprudence from the last decade while bringing up certain elements for thought. Firstly, the article discusses the notion of children’s rights violation as well as the possible recourses in the event thereof. Secondly, it examines recent decisions, focusing on the type of rights that have been violated, defenses that have been brought forward and corrective measures ordered by the tribunal. The author highlights issues, introduces distinctions and attempts to clarify certain obligations of the different parties involved. A large and liberal interpretation regarding the violation of children’s rights is generally proposed, specifically while considering corrective measures.
-
The notion of infringement of rights is the most sensitive issue in the practice of youth protection law. Paragraph 4 of section 91 of the Youth Protection Act provides that when the court seized of a child’s situation under the Act finds that a child’s rights have been infringed, it may order measures to correct the situation. When the rights of a child whose security or development is compromised, have possibly been infringed, the situation awakens the sensitivities of all of the parties involved and calls for diligent action. However, the court’s power to intervene in this matter is laconically defined in the piece of legislation. It has been the subject of unequal interpretations in case law without receiving particularly critical examination by the doctrine. The author therefore seeks to establish the basis for a rigorous legal understanding of this notion in order to render its interpretation consistent and recognize its limits.
-
La Loi sur la protection de la jeunesse met en place un mécanisme qui permet de prendre en charge une situation dans laquelle la sécurité ou le développement d’un enfant sont ou peuvent être considérés comme compromis. Il s’agit donc de redresser une situation potentielle ou avérée de violation des droits de l’enfant. Il arrive cependant que cette intervention elle-même bafoue les droits de l’enfant. Ainsi, le recours judiciaire en lésion de droits permet à la Chambre de la jeunesse de se prononcer sur l’existence de la lésion dans le cadre de l’intervention et d’ordonner des mesures pour y remédier. Notre contribution est le résultat d’une recherche par méthodes mixtes sur des cas récents de lésion de droits examinés par les tribunaux. Nous brossons un portrait des affaires identifiées et nous les analysons, particulièrement quant aux acteurs impliqués et aux mesures ordonnées, en tirant des conclusions sur l’utilité de ce recours.
-
Partisan self-dealing in the design of election laws is a central challenge for democratic governance. This article develops a new conceptual framework, which I call a structural rights approach, that would enable the Supreme Court of Canada to respond effectively to this problem. A structural rights approach uses the language and logic of individual rights to regulate the structure of democratic institutions. In particular, I argue that courts should design democratic rights to remedy the structural deficiencies of the political system. To this end, I claim that the Supreme Court should interpret the right to vote as encompassing a new democratic right – the right to a fair and legitimate democratic process. In addition, I argue that the right to a fair and legitimate democratic process is best understood as a ‘structural right.’ I define ‘structural rights’ as individual rights that take into account the broader institutional framework within which rights are defined, held, and exercised. This article focuses on two cases studies – electoral redistricting and campaign finance – to show how the Court could use the right to a fair and legitimate democratic process to remedy the problem of partisan self-dealing. In addition, this article canvasses a wide array of structural approaches in the Canadian and American law of democracy literatures, and it locates the structural rights approach within this body of scholarship. The article also considers the structural rights approach with reference to theories of dialogue and deference. The structural rights approach not only provides a new paradigm for the Supreme Court’s oversight of the democratic process; it also offers an alternative way to conceptualize democratic rights.
-
Disciplinary sanctions against prisoners like any other decision taken by prison authorities are administrative decisions. That qualification had up to recently the effect of withdrawing those decisions from the supervisory jurisdiction of superior courts. Under such circumstances, the prisoner was the subject of an in-house justice guided by reasons of administrative commodity rather than by the respect of his rights, because he had indeed no right.
-
Prisons present a special context for the interpretation of constitutional rights, where prisoner complaints are pitched against the justifications of prison administrators. In the United States, the history of prisoner rights can be told as a story of the ebb and flow of judicial willingness to defer to the expertise-infused claims of prison administrators. Deference is ostensibly justified by a judicial worry that prison administrators possess specialized knowledge and navigate unique risks, beyond the purview of courts. In recent years, expansive judicial deference in the face of “correctional expertise” has eroded the scope and viability of prisoners’ rights, serving to restore elements of the historical category of “civil death” to the legal conception of the American prisoner. In Canada too, courts have often articulated standards of extreme deference to prison administrators, both before and after the advent of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and notwithstanding that the Charter places a burden on government to justify any infringement of rights. Recently, however, two cases from the Supreme Court of British Columbia mark a break from excessive deference and signify the (late) arrival of a Charter-based prison jurisprudence. In each case, prisoner success depended on expert evidence that challenged the assertions and presumed expertise of institutional defendants. In order to prove a rights infringement and avoid justification under section 1, the evidence must illuminate and specify the effects of penal techniques and policies on both prisoners and third parties. The litigation must interrogate the internal penal world, including presumptions about the workings of prisoner society and conceptions of risk management.
Explore
Resource type
Publication year
-
Between 1900 and 1999
(44)
-
Between 1910 and 1919
(1)
- 1918 (1)
- Between 1930 and 1939 (2)
- Between 1950 and 1959 (2)
- Between 1960 and 1969 (6)
- Between 1970 and 1979 (5)
- Between 1980 and 1989 (11)
- Between 1990 and 1999 (17)
-
Between 1910 and 1919
(1)
-
Between 2000 and 2025
(116)
- Between 2000 and 2009 (37)
- Between 2010 and 2019 (41)
- Between 2020 and 2025 (38)