Your search
Results 235 resources
-
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.
-
Disclaimer: This summary was generated by AI based on the content of the source document.
-
Modern negotiations between the Crown (or private parties) and Canada’s Aboriginal peoples are largely based on the legal principles articulated in major court decisions. Yet those decisions have not yet confronted a fundamental question: how, in the first instance, do we determine which groups can lay claim to the Aboriginal and treaty rights “recognized and affirmed” by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982?
-
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.
-
Disclaimer: This summary was generated by AI based on the content of the source document.
-
In the following paper, the author analyzes the central issues raised by the recognition of aboriginal title under State law. He offers answers to the many unresolved issues concerning the sources of aboriginal title, its conditions of existence and attributes. Concerning the sources of aboriginal title, the author highlights the Supreme Court’s stato-centric approach to the defnition of aboriginal rights and argues, in particular, that the doctrine of continuity of pre-colonial law has more of a metaphoric rather than operational meaning. As for the conditions of the title’s existence, the author concludes that they still remain sufficiently undetermined as to generate legal insecurity and allow judges to conduct, under the guise of an assessment of the historical record, contemporary socio-economic arbitrations between indigenous peoples and the non-indigenous majority. Finally, the analysis of the attributes of aboriginal title brings to light the uncertainty which persists with regard to several fundamental issues, such as, for example, the identity of the holder of title. This uncertainty of the law, as well as the failure of the Supreme Court of Canada to reconcile aboriginal title with modernity, cast doubt on the capacity of indigenous peoples to develop their lands according to their contemporary priorities.
-
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.
-
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.
-
A major reform of civil procedure began in 2002 in the wake of the Ferland report, itself inspired by Lord Woolf’s report on civil justice in England and Wales. In both reports, the idea of proportionality is central, but the Civil Procedure Rules, which also address the issue of litigation costs, codified it much more vigorously than legislation adopted here. Local impact studies are also less probative than those conducted in England. Yet the overall assessment of these reforms leads to similar conclusions and ought to persuade the Quebec legislature to carry matters further in order to counteract the effects of a pervasive adversarial culture. To this end, closer case management, a tighter control on oral discovery and the use whenever possible of single, court-appointed or party-designated experts, are all desirable. Seen from this angle, the reform of 2002 in Quebec lags behind the reform based on the Woolf report.