Your search
Results 16 resources
-
Disclaimer: This summary was generated by AI based on the content of the source document.
-
The Agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States of America for cooperation in the examination of refugee status claims from nationals of third countries (Safe Third Country Agreement) has been subject to criticism since its adoption. Aimed at addressing asylum shopping, the agreement prevents asylum seekers, who have transited through one country, from applying for asylum in the other, subject to certain exceptions. The fact that the agreement applies only to land border ports of entry has led to an increase in irregular entries into Canada, particularly since 2017. The agreement has been the subject of numerous legal challenges. Against this backdrop, the authors analyze the implementation of the agreement in Canadian law and the issues it raises. They argue that the agreement is counterproductive, as if fails to effectively promote the orderly processing of refugee claims from the United States. They also examine the historical background of the numerous legal challenges to the agreement, including the latest Federal Court decision of 2020 which found that the agreement violates section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
-
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.
-
Malini Vjaykumar, 2018 51-1 UBC Law Review 161, 2018 CanLIIDocs 11248
-
The common law of assumed jurisdiction in Canada now consists of judges interpreting and applying the presumptive connecting factors established for tort claims in Club Resorts Ltd. v Van Breda and identifying and fleshing out the contours of presumptive connecting factors for claims other than tort. There is a pressing need for detailed analysis. While the presumptive connecting factor of a tort committed in the forum has been easy to apply in some cases, such as motor vehicle collisions, it has been much harder to apply in cases of defamation, misrepresentation, deceit and conspiracy. Beyond tort, presumptive connecting factors for certain causes of action such as breach of fiduciary duty, breach of confidence, or reversal of an unjust enrichment remain under-analysed. Little consensus exists on what aspects, if any, of these claims would constitute a sufficient connection for assumed jurisdiction. There are also important questions about how the presumptive connecting factor approach operates for several federal and provincial statutory causes of action, which differ in important ways from common law claims, and for assumed jurisdiction with respect to concurrent claims.
-
Québec courts are experiencing an increase in the number of parties without legal representation. Although this trend is generally presented as a problem that generates extra costs and delays for the courts, the central issue is clearly that a large segment of the population is unable to afford legal expenses. However, what is the legal status of non-representation : is acting alone a right ? Although this is the approach generally taken by the courts, the extent of the right is strongly limited by the discretionary way it is implemented. An important distinction must be made between criminal and civil cases, in particular concerning protection for a right that is constitutional in criminal cases, but legislative in civil cases. Despite the lack of knowledge about the reasons why people choose not to be represented by a lawyer, a survey of the jurisprudence shows that acting alone is often considered to be a choice, which then has a significant effect on the implementation of the related judicial guarantees.