Your search

Refugee Law is a concise account of Canadian refugee law, policy, and procedure. It presents refugee law as an independent system, yet one that is open to and influenced by other branches of domestic law, international law, the practices of other jurisdictions, and the general global trends in forced migration. The book examines the historic and contemporary context of refugee law, formal law, and government policy, and the domestic and international principles of refugee protection. The authors seek to provide a solid foundation from which to judge the merits and weaknesses of the existing system, allowing the reader to engage with the ongoing debate, both academic and popular, about the Canadian refugee system.

Recueil des difficultés et des ressources du français juridique. Ouvrage original de jurilinguistique, le JURIDICTIONNAIRE est le fruit d’un travail de dépouill...

Judges are obliged to follow the law, including by imposing mandatory minimum sentences. This can create a moral dilemma. Judges who justify punishment based on its utility in reducing crime may believe that minimum sentences are pointlessly harsh because they do not enhance public protection. Judges who justify punishment based on retributivist theory may feel that mandatory minimum sentences are excessive and therefore unjust. This paper contends that in their effort to impose just and useful sentences, judges tend to seek out and use available legal tools to reduce perceived unfairness. Statutory interpretation, the use of the principle of totality in multiple count prosecutions, and the selective deployment of sentencing tools have all been used to this end. The author contends that striving to constrain the impact of minimum sentences in this way does not corrupt the administration of justice. Instead it is a legitimate, predictable and inevitable outcome.

Disclaimer: This summary was generated by AI based on the content of the source document.

The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA), as well as comparable laws such as the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act, is precisely the type of law one would expect to play a role in mitigating greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from new projects. Unfortunately, in practice, CEAA is proving to be a failure in reducing or even stabilizing ever-increasing Canadian GHG emissions most notably from the oil and gas sector, particularly the tar sands. This article explores the reasons why CEAA has thus far disappointed advocates hoping to see the mitigation of GHG emissions from new projects. The author suggests that headway in reducing GHG emissions may nonetheless be made under CEAA by convincing courts that significance can only be defined in a manner consistent with the dictates of climate science. In particular, a focus on cumulative effects may help define significance in a more climate-friendly manner. The article also explores law reform options that would make CEAA a more effective tool in addressing climate change.

"In Canada since 1875, courts have been permitted to act as advisors alongside their ordinary, adjudicative role. This book offers the first detailed examination of that role from a legal perspective. When one thinks of courts, it is most often in the context of deciding cases: live disputes involving spirited, adversarial debate between opposing parties. Sometimes, though, a court is granted the power to answer questions in the absence of cases through a reference or advisory opinions. These proceedings raise many questions: about the judicial role, about the relationship between courts and those who seek their "advice", and about the nature of law. Tracking their use in Canada since the country's Confederation and looking to the experience in other legal systems, this book considers how reference opinions draw courts into the complex relationship between law and politics. Focusing on key themes such as the separation of powers, federalism, rights and precedent, this book provides an important and timely study of a fascinating phenomenon"-- Provided by publisher

The Canadian environmental assessment (EA) regime is broken. At a time when the Canadian economy is both increasingly sluggish and unsustainable, we have an obligation -- and perhaps a once-in-a-generation opportunity -- to fundamentally reform EA to enable it to finally live up to its promise of promoting sound and sustainability-based decisions. This task is even more pressing in light of the global commitment under the Paris Climate Change Agreement to rapidly transition to greenhouse gas emissions neutrality. Among the many priorities of meaningful EA reform -- moving beyond project-level assessments, focusing on net positive contributions to sustainability, avoiding costly trade-offs among interdependent economic, ecological, and social objectives -- we focus on the overarching need for polyjural collaboration and polycentric consensus-based decision-making. We argue that any serious effort to move from project-level EAs focused exclusively on adverse biophysical impacts towards a fully integrated, sustainability-based assessment (SA) regime requires a polyjural and polycentric approach capable of facilitating collaborative experimentation among multiple jurisdictional actors, including the federal government, provinces, territories, municipalities, Indigenous peoples, NGOs, academia, project proponents and industry groups, and the Canadian public. After examining the constitutional and political dimensions of the federal and provincial governments' role in EA, we provide two compelling rationales for transitioning to a SA regime. The paper concludes by setting out a series of possible forms of SA for the purpose of informing the federal government's review of its EA regime. In particular, we identify and analyze the competing options for jurisdictional cooperation, collaboration, and consensus-based assessment processes along with the constitutional and practical policy implications of each.

Disclaimer: This summary was generated by AI based on the content of the source document.

The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act 2012, which came into force on 6 July 2012, virtually eliminates the core of federal-level environmental assessment in Canada. Under the new law, federal environmental assessments will be few, fragmentary, inconsistent and late. Key decision-making will be discretionary and consequently unpredictable. Much of it will be cloaked in secrecy. The residual potential for effective, efficient and fair assessments will depend heavily on requirements under other federal legislation and on the uneven diversity of provincial, territorial and Aboriginal assessment processes. This paper reviews the key characteristics of the new law in light of 10 basic design principles for environmental assessment processes, and considers the broader international implications of the Canadian retreat from application of these principles.

This commentary assesses the key changes to the federal environmental assessment (EA) process contained in the 2012 Budget Implementation Bill. The resulting Canadian Environmental Assessment Act 2012 (CEAA 2012) is compared to the federal EA process that had been in place since the implementation of the original CEAA in 1995. The article concludes that the key changes brought about by the enactment of CEAA 2012, including the shift in responsibility for EA, the discretionary application of the process, the narrowed scope, new powers of delegation, substitution and equivalency, and the more restricted role of the public all function counter to the improvements to CEAA 1995 recommended in the academic literature. [PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]

"The fifth edition of Environmental Law, is a comprehensive introductory guide to environmental law in Canada which incorporates discussion of recent developments in environmental litigation and regulation alongside reference to key statutory developments from the past half decade. In addition, updating and revisions highlight significant developments in several key areas, notably federal and provincial climate change action following the 2015 Paris Agreement and issues associated with Aboriginal consultation, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) and traditional environmental knowledge."-- Provided by publisher.

La restitution en droit civil est à la fois commune et incomprise. Les occasions de l'appliquer sont nombreuses, mais les juges peinent souvent à en suivre méthodiquement les règles. Cet ouvrage est le premier en droit québécois à approfondir le thème de la restitution des prestations, concept émergent en droit des obligations. Geste simple en apparence, le fait de "rendre ce qui a été reçu" soulève en réalité des difficultés importantes liées notamment au passage du temps. L'anéantissement du contrat, la réception de l'indu et l'impossibilité d'exécuter une obligation en raison d'un événement de force majeure ne sont que quelques-uns des cas visés. Cet ouvrage rend compte des fondements et du régime de la restitution en droit québécois. Il explique les dispositions du Code civil du Québec et en éclaire l'application. -- Résumé de l'éditeur