Your search
Results 346 resources
-
Since the swift passage of the Anti-Terrorism Act in 2015, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) has had the unprecedented and highly controversial authority to take ‘reasonable and proportionate’ measures to reduce threats to Canadian security. While there are some limits to the types of measures CSIS can employ, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act permits the use of measures that would otherwise contravene the laws of Canada or limit a right protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms so long as they are judicially authorized by the Federal Court. As new threats proliferate around the world, it is anticipated that CSIS will increasingly carry out this mandate overseas. Yet review bodies tasked with monitoring CSIS’s use of threat reduction measures (TRMs) report that CSIS has never sought judicial authorization to conduct a TRM. Why? One answer may be that CSIS has concluded that the Charter does not govern actions carried out abroad, and, as such, their extraterritorial conduct falls beyond the reach and oversight of the Federal Court. Whether the Charter applies to CSIS’s overseas conduct ostensibly lies in the Supreme Court of Canada’s leading case on the extraterritorial application of the Charter, R v Hape. This article canvasses domestic and international law, as well as intelligence law theory, to explain why that presumption is wrong. Wrong, not least because the majority opinion in Hape is deeply flawed in its analysis and application of international law. But also, because intelligence operations are so distinguishable from the transnational criminal investigations at issue in Hape, the Court’s findings are inapplicable in the former context. In short, this article demonstrates that applying Hape to the actions of CSIS officers not only leaves their actions beyond the scrutiny of Canadian courts but also creates a significant human rights gap.
-
Evidence — letters rogatory — public policy against extraterritorial applications of US lawMorgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP v. Gauthier (2006), 82 OR (3d) 189 (29 August 2006). Ontario Superior Court of Justice.The applicant MLB was a US law firm carrying on business principally in Philadelphia. It sought an order from the Ontario Superior Court of Justice giving effect to a letter of request issued by the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania. This court sought the assistance of the Ontario court in obtaining document production and testimony from the respondent, Claude Gauthier, a Canadian citizen resident in Ontario.
-
Dans l’arrêt R c Jarvis, la Cour suprême du Canada (CSC) a interprété pour la première fois la disposition du Code criminel sur le voyeurisme. Le présent article examine la jurisprudence pertinente en matière de voyeurisme qui a précédé l’arrêt Jarvis, y compris trois questions litigieuses qui ont façonné les interprétations judiciaires antérieures : la pertinence de la jurisprudence relative à l’article 8 de la Charte, la perspective de la vie privée en public et l’applicabilité de l’analyse du risque. Bien que les motifs de la CSC ne reconnaissent pas explicitement les questions d’égalité en jeu, son traitement de ces trois questions reflète sans doute trois volets de la théorie et de la jurisprudence féministes qui favorisent l’égalité. Cet article explore ce chevauchement, suggérant que les motifs de la CSC dans l’arrêt Jarvis peuvent être compris comme étant implicitement féministes. Reconnaissant que des motifs explicitement féministes auraient un plus grand potentiel de reconnaissance de l’égalité, l’auteure affirme que les motifs de la CSC représentent une étape positive vers une conception du droit à la vie privée en ce sens.
Explore
Resource type
Topics
- Criminal law (1)
- Voyeurism (1)