Your search
Results 30 resources
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
This paper explores the means by which tax authorities worldwide seek to strengthen their tax treaties, through safeguards of varying nature and scope, in order to identify and prevent what they consider to be abuse of such treaties. These means of challenge may be grouped under two headings: purposive approaches to treaty interpretation, particularly with respect to the terms 'person', 'resident' and 'beneficial ownership'; and broader responses to unacceptable tax avoidance, specifically reliance on treaty anti-abuse principles and domestic anti-avoidance rules. The Canadian response is evinced by two recent cases in which the government unsuccessfully challenged 'treaty shopping' arrangements, MIL (Investments) SA v Canada and Prevost Car Inc v Canada. Building on the existing literature regarding tax treaty shopping and other forms of tax treaty abuse, this work seeks not only to describe and explain the responses to treaty abuse but to make a critical inquiry into the essence of such abuse, particularly as it appears to be viewed by the Canadian revenue authorities. It is argued that the Canadian response to tax treaty abuse is inadequate, largely because it conflates multiple approaches and fails to address a key concern: the existence or lack of genuine economic establishment in the treaty state. The paper concludes with some suggestions for fashioning a more coherent and intellectually honest response to tax treaty abuse.
-
The dominant philosophy in family court emphasizes cooperative solutions between separating parents who are encouraged to put their conflicts behind them. For the majority of separating families, this collaborative approach will best serve their children. However, cases involving domestic violence require a paradigm shift, with a greater focus on making a parenting plan that protects victims and children, and less emphasis on speedy, cooperative outcomes. This paper presents a framework for addressing domestic violence through a tiered assessment strategy and an accompanying intervention framework depicted by off-ramps from a freeway (as an analogy in this case to the substantial momentum towards collaborative settlements). These off-ramps for domestic violence and high-conflict cases do not suggest a one-size-fits-all solution within these categories; rather, they mark a departure point from which a wide range of solutions may be considered. Policy and practice implications of this paradigm shift are highlighted.
-
Disclaimer: This summary was generated by AI based on the content of the source document.
-
The confessions rule—the requirement that the Crown prove the voluntariness of the accused’s statements to persons in authority—is a well-established rule of criminal evidence and is closely connected with the constitutional principle against self-incrimination that it structures. The confessions rule is thus a natural candidate for recognition as a principle of fundamental justice under section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. However, there are two distinct routes by which the confessions rule might be constitutionalized. Under the “rule of evidence” approach, the confessions rule would be recognized as an aspect of the accused’s constitutional right to a fair trial. Under the “rights violation” approach, the conduct of the state in obtaining an involuntary statement would be treated as a violation of the accused’s constitutional rights.
-
Disclaimer: This summary was generated by AI based on the content of the source document.