Your search

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.

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.

Five dimensions of gender-based violence are explored: unwanted sexual behaviour while in public, unwanted sexual behaviour online, unwanted sexual behaviour in the workplace, sexual assault, and physical assault. * According to the 2018 Survey of Safety in Public and Private Spaces (SSPPS), an estimated 1 million people in Canada are sexual minorities-that is, they reported their sexual orientation as gay, lesbian, bisexual or a sexual orientation that is not heterosexual-representing 4% of the population of Canada 15 years of age and older. * In addition, approximately 75,000 people, or 0.24% of the population of Canada aged 15 and older indicated on the SSPPS that their assigned sex at birth was different from their current gender, or that they were neither male nor female-in other words, that they are transgender. Research suggests that sexual minority (those who stated their sexual orientation as lesbian, gay, bisexual, pansexual, asexual, or otherwise not heterosexual) people experience violence at a greater prevalence than heterosexual people (Simpson 2018; Walters et al. 2013). While this analysis will focus on the impacts of sexual orientation and gender on experiences of victimization and unwanted sexual behaviours, it is important to recognize that there are many aspects of a person that can intersect-such as their sexual orientation, gender, race, or whether they have a disability-and impact their likelihood of experiencing victimization (Crenshaw 1994). Experiences of sexual minority Canadians According to the 2018 Survey of Safety in Public and Private Spaces (SSPPS), an estimated 1 million Canadians are sexual minorities-that is, they reported their sexual orientation as gay, lesbian, bisexual or a sexual orientation that is not heterosexual-representing 4% of the population of Canada 15 years of age and older.

Human rights instruments are but one of many legal advocacy tools used by trans people. Recent legal scholarship emphasizes that human rights laws are not sufficient to address legal challenges facing trans people, particularly intersectional and systemic barriers. This article looks to Canadian trans case law outside of human rights law to reveal the many instances in which trans people’s fight for legal recognition and redress occur outside of the human rights arena. It focuses on trans case law in three areas: family law, the use of name and gender in court, and access to social benefits. Canadian trans jurisprudence illustrates that not only are trans legal strategies outside of human rights plentiful and effective, they are also imperative. An agile and pragmatic approach to trans rights is necessary, particularly when minority rights are under threat, and for trans people on the margins of trans law reforms., RésuméLes instruments de protection des droits de la personne ne sont que l’un des nombreux outils juridiques utilisés par les personnes trans. Une récente étude juridique souligne d’ailleurs que les lois sur les droits de la personne ne sont pas suffisantes pour relever les défis juridiques auxquels sont confrontées les personnes trans, en particulier les barrières intersectionnelles et systémiques. Cet article se penche sur la jurisprudence canadienne portant sur des litiges trans qui ne touchent pas les lois relatives aux droits de la personne. Cette analyse permet de révéler les nombreux cas dans lesquels la lutte des personnes trans pour la reconnaissance juridique et la réparation survient en dehors de l’arène des droits de la personne. L’article se concentre sur la jurisprudence trans dans trois domaines : le droit de la famille, l’utilisation du nom et du genre devant les tribunaux et l’accès aux prestations sociales. La jurisprudence canadienne relative aux personnes trans illustre que non seulement les stratégies juridiques trans qui se trouve à l’extérieur des droits de l’homme sont nombreuses et efficaces, mais qu’elles sont également impératives. Une approche agile et pragmatique des droits des trans est donc nécessaire, en particulier lorsque les droits des minorités sont menacés, ainsi que pour les personnes trans qui se trouvent en marge des réformes des droits trans.

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.

Rendered in December 2019, the Vavilov decision sets the contemporary analytical framework for the judicial review of an administrative decision on the merits. On this occasion, the Supreme Court expressed the desire to add a certain degree of certainty and consistency to this field of law. This article focuses on the new approach’s propensity to achieve that goal. The analysis begins with the observation that there exists a connection between the instability that has historically characterized the law of judicial review and the failure of previous approaches to adequately guide reviewing courts in the fulfillment of their mission, which consists of balancing the rule of law and legislative supremacy. In light of earlier case law, the author concludes that the Vavilov decision offers the prospect of greater certainty in determining the applicable standard of review, but that the risk of instability remains with respect to the application of the reasonableness standard. Indeed, while the Supreme Court’s guidance in this regard generally reflects a concern to alleviate the tension underlying the relationship between rule of law and legislative supremacy principles, some of the majority justices’ assertions, namely that certain statutory provisions “relating to the scope of a decision maker’s authority” may involve only one interpretation, may weaken the self-discipline of reviewing courts on which judicial deference is based.

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.

Loyalty has many meanings, within and without the law. There is a difficult question about whether loyalty is a virtue, inasmuch as one can be loyal to many causes, not all of them virtuous. For many jurists, the notion of loyalty evokes the common law’s fiduciary relationship and the norms that are particular to that … Continued

Is sexual assault: (1) sexual abuse; (2) a sexual affair; (3) a youthful indiscretion; (4) a deviance; or (5) none of the above? It is not always easy to navigate the issue of sexual violence. In a society marked by rape culture, unconscious biases can lead us to euphemize, romanticize, eroticize, excuse, and even encourage sexual violence. This article offers a linguistic perspective on sexual violence by examining the biases, stereotypes, and myths about rape that permeate legal discourse. We discuss terms that trivialize sexual violence, such as “sexual abuse,” “stealing a kiss,” “fondling,” and “misconduct.” We also analyze victim-blaming language, sexist expressions that betray a view of rape as a “loss of control,” the unseen presence of violent men, and the shifting nature and pathologizing of perpetrators. By examining rape culture specifically from the perspective of language or discourse, we provide lawyers with new tools to advance the fight against violence towards women.