Results | SCC-Authors-Cited

Nolan, D., & Robertson, A. (Eds.). (2012). McBride, Nicholas J. “Rights and the Basis of Tort Law”,. In Rights and private law. Hart Pub.

Birnbaum, R., Bala, N., & Bertrand, L. (2017). The Rise of Self-Representation in Canada’s Family Courts: The Complex Picture Revealed in Surveys of Judges, Lawyers and Litigants. In Marital Rights. Routledge.

This article reports on four interrelated studies on self-representation by family litigants: a study of family litigants in Ontario; a survey of perceptions of lawyers in Ontario and Alberta; and a study of Canadian judges. There has clearly been an increase in self-representation in family cases. Lack of financial resources is the most significant reason for self-representation, but a significant number of the self-represented do not believe that they will have worse outcomes without a lawyer. Lawyers and judges report significant concerns about lack of representation, including fewer settlements and a slower process, with corresponding increased expenses for a represented party.

Newman, W. J. (2016). Constitutional Amendment by Legislation. In E. Macfarlane (Ed.), Constitutional amendment in Canada (pp. 105–125). University of Toronto Press.

Gallant, M. (2014). Civil Processes and Tainted Assets: Exploring Canadian Models of Forfeiture. In C. King & C. Walker (Eds.), Dirty assets: emerging issues in the regulation of criminal and terrorist assets (p. 165). Ashgate Publishing Limited.

Huscroft, G. (2014). Introduction. In B. W. Miller & G. Webber (Eds.), Proportionality and the Rule of Law (pp. 1–18). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107565272.002

Panaccio, C.-M. (2017). The Justification of Rights Violations: Section 1 of the Charter. In The Oxford Handbook of the Canadian Constitution. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/law/9780190664817.003.0031

This chapter is about the interpretation of section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Section 1 allows ‘limits’ to constitutional rights insofar as they are reasonable and justified in a free and democratic society. It asks the state for moral justification when a right has been infringed by state action. Moral justification has formal and substantive aspects; therefore the application of section 1 deploys a formal framework of proportionality nestled within a thin conception of liberal democratic political morality. The chapter also addresses the relative moral importance of the notion of ‘rights’, as well as the relevance of institutional considerations. It concludes that the section 1 framework follows a standard model of moral justification and cannot be significantly improved upon.

Evans, P. M., & Wekerle, G. R. (2016). The Shifting Terrain of Women’s Welfare: Theory, Discourse, and Activism. In Women and the Canadian Welfare State (pp. 3–27). University of Toronto Press. https://doi.org/10.3138/9781442683549-004

Harvey, C., & Schwartz, A. (2012). Independent or Dependent? Constitutional Courts in Divided Societies. In Rights in Divided Societies. Hart Publishing Limited.

Keller, H., & Grover, L. (2012). General Comments of the Human Rights Committee and their legitimacy. In H. Keller, G. Ulfstein, & L. Grover (Eds.), UN human rights treaty bodies: law and legitimacy (p. 116). Cambridge University Press.

"The effective implementation of human rights treaty obligations in national law is subject to increasing attention. The main responsibility for the international monitoring of national implementation at the global level is entrusted to the UN human rights treaty bodies. These bodies are established by the respective human rights conventions and are composed of independent experts. This book examines three aspects of these bodies: the legal aspects of their structure, functions and decisions; their effectiveness in ensuring respect for human rights obligations; and the legitimacy of these bodies and their decisions. Containing contributions from a variety of eminent legal experts, including present and former members of the treaty bodies, the analysis should be read in light of the ongoing effort to strengthen treaty bodies under the auspices of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and with the involvement of relevant stakeholders"--Provided by publisher.

Sullivan, R. (2011). Côté’s Contribution to the Interpretation of Bilingual and Multilingual Legislation. In P.-A. Côté, M. Devinat, & S. Beaulac (Eds.), Interpretatio non cessat: mélanges en l’honneur de Pierre-André Côté = essays in honour of Pierre-André Côté. Éditions Y. Blais.

Lawrence, S. (2017). Equality and Anti-discrimination: The Relationship between Government Goals and Finding Discrimination in Section 15. In P. Oliver, P. Macklem, & N. Des Rosiers (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of the Canadian Constitution (p. 0). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/law/9780190664817.003.0039

This chapter considers the effect of section 1, the “justification” section of the Canadian Charter, on the doctrinal development of section 15, the equality section. It begins by describing the development of the section 15 substantive equality analysis, including the claim of a conceptually complete separation from the section 1 analysis of state justification. The chapter then identifies some features of section 15 which suggest that this separation is less than complete, including the existence of section 15(2), and anxieties over constraining government action. The chapter then turns to three post-2001 cases in which the Supreme Court of Canada found discrimination under the Charter but then held that discrimination was “justified” through section 1, and asks what these cases might reveal about the symbolic significance of a finding of discrimination and the Court’s struggle with institutional competence concerns in equality claims.

View on doi.org

Jackson, V. C. (2017). Proportionality and Equality. In V. C. Jackson & M. Tushnet (Eds.), Proportionality: New Frontiers, New Challenges. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316691724.009

Maillette, H. (2019). Incidents qui mettent fin à l’instance. In P.-C. Lafond (Ed.), JurisClasseur Québec. Procédure civile. I. (2e ed.). LexisNexis. (Original work published 2015)

Lafond, P. (2018). Introduction. In P.-C. Lafond & M.-C. Belleau (Eds.), Régler autrement les différends (Deuxième édition.). LexisNexis Canada Inc.

Fricero, N. (2019). Audience et débats. In P. Carillon & R. Perrot (Eds.), *JurisClasseur France — Procédure civile*. LexisNexis.

Encyclopédie juridique de droit français. Donne l'état des diverses branches du droit en France: doctrine, jurisprudence, index bibliographique, certains périodiques en texte intégral (exhaustivité variable)

Fricero, N. (2018). Désistement. In P. Carillon & R. Perrot (Eds.), *JurisClasseur France — Procédure civile*. LexisNexis.

Encyclopédie juridique de droit français. Donne l'état des diverses branches du droit en France: doctrine, jurisprudence, index bibliographique, certains périodiques en texte intégral (exhaustivité variable)

Guillemard, S. (2016). Réflexions autour des sept premiers articles du *Code de procédure civile*. In S. Guillemard (Ed.), Le Code de procédure civile: quelles nouveautés? (p. 123). Éditions Yvon Blais.

Piché‑Messier, M., & McNicoll, A. B. (2019). Développements récents en matière de propriété intellectuelle dans le cadre des ordonnances de type *Anton Piller*, *Mareva* et *Norwich*. In Développements récents en droit de la propriété intellectuelle (Vol. 464, p. 89). Éditions Yvon Blais.

Plamondon, J. (2016). Les principes directeurs et le nouveau Code de procédure civile (art. 17 à 24 C.p.c.). In S. Guillemard (Ed.), Le Code de procédure civile: quelles nouveautés? (p. 27). Éditions Yvon Blais.

Côté, P.-A., & LeBel, L. (2011). La méthode d’interprétation moderne: le juge devant lui‑même et en lui‑même. In M. Devinat & S. Beaulac (Eds.), Interpretatio non cessat: mélanges en l’honneur de Pierre-André Côté = essays in honour of Pierre-André Côté (p. 103). Éditions Y. Blais.

Your search

Results 109 resources

Explore

Resource type

Publication year