Your search
Results 119 resources
-
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.
-
Introduces citizens to solutions for reforming the American campaign finance system
-
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.
-
The adoption of a new Code of Civil Procedure in Quebec provides an opportune moment to consider the reasons for, and consequences of, a new direction in adjectival law. Moreover, it is an appropriate time to reflect on the influence of legal traditions on civil procedure, and the role played by such traditions in the legislative evolution and judicial interpretation of procedural law. This paper analyzes the current trends in civil procedure in Quebec, from both legislative and judicial standpoints, and seeks to relate these trends to tradition-based influences. Ultimately, this study demonstrates that Quebec’s procedural law has experienced great swings of the pendulum – originally inheriting continental civilian procedure from the French, gradually evolving towards a very common law/adversarial notion of procedure, and nowreverting back in a civiliste direction.
-
"In 1922, the first edition of Bankruptcy Law in Canada found pride of place on the shelves of Canadian insolvency practitioners. Now nearly a century later, the new Fifth Edition of Honsberger?s Bankruptcy in Canada is destined to become an invaluable resource for the insolvency community ? a trusted authority for those who deal with bankruptcy problems on a daily basis and those who need occasional guidance. Honsberger?s Bankruptcy in Canada, Fifth Edition is thorough and comprehensive, but also understandable and eminently readable. In clearly written prose, the authors articulate not just the principles, but the history and adaptations underlying the principles, along with practical insight and guidance. Rather than follow the Act section by section, the authors have gathered relevant elements by concept and theme. Practitioners and jurists, with their heavily underlined copies of the previous edition, will welcome both the logical new organization and the updated examination." --publisher's description.
-
"Annual Review of Insolvency Law is a collection of cutting-edge articles by practitioners, academics and members of the judiciary from all regions of Canada, written to provide professionals with a state-of-the-art overview of the most vital and relevant developments in Canadian insolvency law."-- Publisher's website
Explore
Resource type
- Book (55)
- Book Section (11)
- Case (6)
- Dictionary Entry (4)
- Journal Article (41)
- Report (2)
Topics
- Administrative law (2)
- Copyright (5)
- Copyright Pentalogy (5)
- Intellectual property (5)
- Judicial review (2)