Your search
Results 654 resources
-
On June 8, 2020 the Ontario Attorney General Doug Downey said that the Crown would be seeking leave to appeal Sullivan & Chan to the Supreme Court of Canada. 12 This is a time of opportunity in the intoxication/NMDA sphere. The Supreme Court will (likely) have an opportunity to define this defence and requisite elements, and/or Parliament will have an opportunity to redraft s. 33.1 to bring much needed clarity. This comment will give some thoughts on the appeal of Sullivan & Chan, and the state of intoxication and automatism going forward examining both the voluntariness and the mens rea required.
-
Larticle 52 de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1982 «rend inoperantes les dispositions incompatibles de toute autre regle de droit». Deux visions diamétralement opposees concernant les effets juridiques des declarations dinvalidite prononcees en vertu de cette disposition se sont recemment affrontees. Selon la premiere approche, les declarations dinvalidite constituent des jugements in rem. Sous reserve dun appel, la declaration simpose au corpus legislatif, efface de fait la disposition en question et est opposable a tous. Selon la seconde approche, les effets dune declaration dinvalidite est regie par la regle habituelle de la stare decisis. Si lon ne doit pas prendre les decisions du meme ordre de juridiction a la legere, celles-ci nen sont pas pour autant formellement contraignantes. Dans cet article, ¡'auteur fait valoir que la theorie de la non-conformite soustendant le controle judiciaire des lois constitue un fondement permettant de conclure que les declarations d'invalidite sont similaires a d'autres decisions portant sur une loi. En vertu de cette theorie, le controle judiciaire d'une loi constitue une tache habituelle des tribunaux qui consiste a resoudre une incoherence entre des textes legislatifs. La Cour supreme a laisse entendre que sa doctrine portant sur les declarations formelles d'invalidite etait porteuse de consequences radicales. Il est difficile de concilier ces consequences avec Revolution historique du controle judiciaire au Canada ou le texte et la structure de la Constitution. La theorie de la non-conformite propose que les regles applicables aux effets juridiques des decisions portant sur les questions de droit devraient s'appliquer aux decisions portant sur un controle judiciaire : la regle habituelle de la stare decisis s'applique. Section 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982 provides that any law inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect. Two opposing views on the legal effects of declarations of invalidity made under this provision have recently come into conflict. On the first view, declarations of invalidity are judgments in rem. Subject to an appeal a declaration binds the statute book, effectively erases the offending provision and is opposable to all. On the second view, the effects of a declaration of invalidity is governed by the ordinary rules of stare decisis. Coordinate decisions are not to be departed from lightly, but are not strictly binding. This article argues that the repugnancy theory of judicial review of legislation supports the conclusion that declarations of invalidity are similar to other determinations of law. Under this theory, the judicial review of legislation is an ordinary judicial task consisting in the resolution of a conflict between legal authorities. The Supreme Court has suggested radical consequences under its doctrine of formal declarations of invalidity. Those consequences are difficult to reconcile with the history of judicial review in Canada or the text and structure of the Constitution. The repugnancy theory suggests that the rules governing the legal effects of determinations of questions of law should govern determinations on judicial review: the ordinary rules of stare decisis govern.
-
This article proposes a new interpretation of section 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982. It argues that the legal effect of this provision depends on the type of unconstitutionality at issue. On the one hand, subsection 52(1) governs substantive conflicts between constitutional and legislative norms by rendering inoperative legislation that is incompatible with the supreme law. On the other hand, subsection 52(3) requires the observance of the procedural rules prescribed by the Constitution. Legislative measures that contravene this procedural criterion are ultra vires and, as a result, invalid. This article further attempts to clarify the effects of declarations of unconstitutionality on third parties as well as their temporal operation. It contends that declaratory judgments of unconstitutionality are in rem in nature. Such declarations bind parties to the litigation and third parties alike by virtue of the principle of res judicata, subject to rare exceptions. The general scope of declarations of unconstitutionality allows courts to adjust the temporal operation of the law deemed unconstitutional, notably to maintain the security and stability of legal relationships.
-
"Sentencing in Canada contains a unique collection of essays that explore all key aspects of sentencing. The contributors include leading academics, criminal law practitioners, and members of the judiciary, and many of the authors have extensive experience working in the areas of sentencing and parole. The volume is not simply a statement of the law -- instead, the chapters explore the wider context in which sentencing and parole decisions are taken. The volume also incorporates findings from the latest empirical research into sentencing policy and practice in Canada, including important issues such as sentencing Indigenous persons. As Mr Justice Moldaver notes in his preface, the volume "will be useful to criminal law practitioners and, more generally, to all persons interested in sentencing."-- Provided by publisher.
-
Research Summary By taking advantage of data published by the Sentencing Project to analyze whether states that use life without parole (LWOP) more often experience lower violent crime rates or greater reductions in violent crime, this study is the first to empirically assess the crime-reducing potential of LWOP sentences. The results suggest that LWOP might produce a small absolute reduction in violent crime but that it is no more effective than life with parole. Policy Implications Despite reductions in the use of the death penalty, LWOP has expanded dramatically—and at a much faster rate—over the last quarter century. This expansion has come at great financial and human costs and has not been distributed equally throughout the population. As such, the public policy debate over the use of LWOP is likely to intensify. Yet, to date, there have been no empirical assessments of LWOP's efficacy to inform this debate. This study begins to fill this gap in our knowledge, and the results, if replicated, suggest that the use of LWOP should be either scaled back or eliminated.
Explore
Resource type
- Blog Post (5)
- Book (192)
- Book Section (45)
- Case (218)
- Dictionary Entry (33)
- Document (1)
- Journal Article (152)
- Magazine Article (2)
- Newspaper Article (1)
- Presentation (1)
- Report (4)
Topics
- Aboriginal law (4)
- Aboriginal peoples (2)
- Abuse of process (5)
- Access to information (1)
- Administrative law (9)
- Admissibility (1)
- Appeals (5)
- Arrest (2)
- Assurance (1)
- Bankruptcy and insolvency (6)
- Banks (1)
- Charge to jury (2)
- Charter of Rights (29)
- Child and family services (1)
- Choice of forum (1)
- Civil liability (1)
- Civil procedure (2)
- Communications law (1)
- Constitutional law (45)
- Contracts (2)
- Copyright (1)
- Costs (1)
- Court having jurisdiction (1)
- Courts (8)
- Criminal law (85)
- Crown law (1)
- Custody (4)
- Declaration of invalidity (1)
- Discoverability (1)
- Division of powers (4)
- Evidence (15)
- Expropriation (2)
- Extraterritoriality (1)
- Family law (7)
- Fiduciary duty (1)
- Financial institutions (1)
- Fitness to stand trial (1)
- Habeas corpus (1)
- Human rights (1)
- Immigration (3)
- Impaired driving (2)
- Income tax (4)
- Informer privilege (1)
- Insurance (2)
- Intellectual property (3)
- Judicial review (3)
- Jurisdiction (5)
- Labour relations (1)
- Limitation of actions (1)
- Mediation (1)
- Negligence (1)
- Obligation of loyalty (1)
- Obstructing justice (1)
- Occupational health and safety (1)
- Open court principle (1)
- Patents (1)
- Prerogative writs (1)
- Prescription (1)
- Private international law (2)
- Property (1)
- Prosecutorial immunity (1)
- Provincial offences (1)
- Publication bans (1)
- Real property (1)
- Right to security of person (1)
- Sale of goods (1)
- Securities (1)
- Sentencing (9)
- Sex workers (1)
- Sexual assault (6)
- Status of persons (1)
- Statutes (1)
- Taxation (6)
- Telecommunications (1)
- Torts (1)
- Trafficking in persons (1)
- Transportation law (2)
- Treaty rights (1)
- Trial (5)
- Voyeurism (1)
- Young persons (2)