Search
Full bibliography 1,236 resources
-
This chapter explores customary refugee law. Refugee law is primarily treaty law. However, many of the major refugee-receiving countries are not parties to either the Refugee Convention or the Refugee Protocol, for example Bangladesh, Pakistan, India, Iran, Jordan, and Lebanon. Hence, customary international refugee law can be critically important in the identification of key principles of refugee protection and as an indication of what is permitted or not. While customary international law may not play as significant a role in refugee law as it does in other areas of international law, there are at least three practices of refugee protection aimed at safeguarding access and admission to refugee protection for which varying degrees of agreement exist in favour of a rule (or emerging rule) of customary law: non-refoulement, temporary refuge, and the right to be granted (to receive) asylum. These practices are deeply intertwined in their humanitarian purpose.
-
Rendered in December 2019, the Vavilov decision sets the contemporary analytical framework for the judicial review of an administrative decision on the merits. On this occasion, the Supreme Court expressed the desire to add a certain degree of certainty and consistency to this field of law. This article focuses on the new approach’s propensity to achieve that goal. The analysis begins with the observation that there exists a connection between the instability that has historically characterized the law of judicial review and the failure of previous approaches to adequately guide reviewing courts in the fulfillment of their mission, which consists of balancing the rule of law and legislative supremacy. In light of earlier case law, the author concludes that the Vavilov decision offers the prospect of greater certainty in determining the applicable standard of review, but that the risk of instability remains with respect to the application of the reasonableness standard. Indeed, while the Supreme Court’s guidance in this regard generally reflects a concern to alleviate the tension underlying the relationship between rule of law and legislative supremacy principles, some of the majority justices’ assertions, namely that certain statutory provisions “relating to the scope of a decision maker’s authority” may involve only one interpretation, may weaken the self-discipline of reviewing courts on which judicial deference is based.
-
Disclaimer: This summary was generated by AI based on the content of the source document.
-
Disclaimer: This summary was generated by AI based on the content of the source document.
-
In my post on “Unreasonable Bilingual Interpretations of Law“, I mentioned that the Supreme Court would have the opportunity in Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Mason, 2021 FCA 156 (leave granted) to say more about the methodology of reviewing administrative interpretations of law. Mason raises other issues as well, one of which also arose in […]
Explore
Resource type
- Blog Post (3)
- Book (483)
- Book Section (106)
- Case (130)
- Conference Paper (3)
- Dictionary Entry (53)
- Encyclopedia Article (1)
- Journal Article (444)
- Newspaper Article (1)
- Preprint (1)
- Presentation (1)
- Report (9)
- Thesis (1)
Topics
- Aboriginal law (3)
- Aboriginal peoples (1)
- Access to information (1)
- Administrative law (10)
- Admissibility (1)
- Appeals (5)
- Arrest (1)
- Assurance (1)
- Bankruptcy and insolvency (3)
- Banks (1)
- Canada (3)
- Charge to jury (2)
- Charter of Rights (12)
- Child and family services (1)
- Choice of forum (1)
- Civil liability (1)
- Communications law (1)
- Constitutional law (25)
- Contracts (1)
- Copyright (7)
- Copyright Pentalogy (5)
- Court having jurisdiction (1)
- Courts (6)
- Criminal law (55)
- Custody (1)
- Division of powers (4)
- Equity (1)
- Evidence (11)
- Expropriation (1)
- Extraterritoriality (1)
- Family law (2)
- Financial institutions (1)
- Fitness to stand trial (1)
- Habeas corpus (1)
- Immigration (3)
- Impaired driving (2)
- Income tax (1)
- Informer privilege (1)
- Infringement (2)
- Insurance (1)
- Intellectual property (5)
- Judicial review (5)
- Jurisdiction (3)
- Obligation of loyalty (1)
- Occupational health and safety (1)
- Open court principle (1)
- Prerogative writs (1)
- Prescription (1)
- Private international law (1)
- Property (1)
- Provincial offences (1)
- Publication bans (1)
- Real property (1)
- Right to security of person (1)
- Sale of goods (1)
- Securities (2)
- Sentencing (8)
- Sex workers (1)
- Sexual assault (4)
- Status of persons (1)
- Statutes (1)
- Taxation (3)
- Telecommunications (1)
- Trafficking in persons (1)
- Transportation law (1)
- Treaty rights (1)
- Trial (2)
- Voyeurism (1)
- Young persons (2)
Publication year
- Between 1700 and 1799 (2)
-
Between 1800 and 1899
(5)
-
Between 1830 and 1839
(1)
- 1830 (1)
-
Between 1840 and 1849
(1)
- 1849 (1)
-
Between 1880 and 1889
(1)
- 1880 (1)
- Between 1890 and 1899 (2)
-
Between 1830 and 1839
(1)
-
Between 1900 and 1999
(257)
-
Between 1910 and 1919
(1)
- 1918 (1)
- Between 1930 and 1939 (6)
- Between 1940 and 1949 (3)
- Between 1950 and 1959 (7)
- Between 1960 and 1969 (24)
- Between 1970 and 1979 (23)
- Between 1980 and 1989 (75)
- Between 1990 and 1999 (118)
-
Between 1910 and 1919
(1)
-
Between 2000 and 2026
(972)
- Between 2000 and 2009 (212)
- Between 2010 and 2019 (334)
- Between 2020 and 2026 (426)