Your search

The lawyer’s duty to encourage respect for the administration of justice remains largely amorphous and abstract. In this article, I draw lessons about this duty from historical instances in which Attorneys General inappropriately criticized judges. Not only are Attorneys General some of the highest-profile lawyers in the country, but they also face unique tensions and pressures that bring their duties as lawyers into stark relief. I focus on the two instances where law societies sought to discipline Attorneys General for such criticism of judges, as well as a more recent instance in which no discipline proceedings were pursued. I also consider the obligations of Attorneys General when other Ministers inappropriately criticize judges. I conclude that a lawyer must take all reasonable steps in the circumstances to confirm the factual and legal accuracy of any criticism of the judiciary; that law societies should allow reasonable but defined latitude for public criticism of judges; and that, where a client inappropriately criticizes the judiciary, their lawyer must make good-faith efforts to urge the client to discontinue and apologize for such criticism—and if those efforts are unsuccessful, the lawyer must repudiate that criticism themselves or withdraw.

Disclaimer: This summary was generated by AI based on the content of the source document.

Perceptions of and experiences with police and the justice system among the Black and Indigenous populations in Canada: Highlights * The Black population and Indigenous people (First Nations people, Métis, and Inuit) living in Canada have distinct histories, backgrounds, geographic distributions, and current conditions and situations. While these groups are distinct, their perceptions and experiences are explored in this article to highlight similarities and differences relative to the population who is neither Indigenous nor a member of a population group designated as visible minority. * According to the 2020 General Social Survey (GSS) on Social Identity, one in five Black (21%) and Indigenous (22%) people have little or no confidence in police, double the proportion among those who were neither Indigenous nor a visible minority (11 %). * Based on data from the 2019 GSS on Canadians' Safety (Victimization), Black and Indigenous people are more likely to rate police performance poorly. Perceptions of and experiences with police and the justice system among the Black and Indigenous populations in Canada by Adam Cotter, Canadian Centre for Justice and Community Safety Statistics The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Canada Act 1982) states that all individuals in Canada are equal before and under the law, and that all should be afforded equal protection and benefit of the law without discrimination. [...]over 200 different ethnic or cultural origins were cited by those who self-identified as Black in the 2016 Census of population, with the 10 most frequent being Jamaican, Other African,3 Haitian, Canadian, English, Somali, Nigerian, French, Ethiopian and Scottish (Statistics Canada 2019).

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.

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.

TERMINOLOGY AND LEGAL FRAMEWORK Three categories of international rules may govern letters of credit: * The Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credit, 2007 Revision, ICC Publication 600 (UCP), which were prepared by the International Chamber of Commerce; * The International Standby Practices ISP98, 1998, ICC Publication 590 (ISP98), which were prepared by experts in the United States and subsequently endorsed by the International Chamber of Commerce; * The Uniform Rules for Demand Guarantees, 2010 Revision, ICC Publication 758 (URDG), which were prepared by the International Chamber of Commerce. By contrast, a standby letter of credit is generally an undertaking to pay the purpose (but not the legal nature) of which is similar to a guarantee:2 for example, the issuing bank will undertake to make a payment to the beneficiary upon presentation of a demand by the beneficiary stating that the applicant is in default to perform its obligations under a certain contract. [...]letters of credit are frequently used in purely domestic transactions. The leading Canadian case in the area of letters of credit is the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Bank of Nova Scotia v. Angelica-Whitewear Ltd. and Angelica Corporation3 (AngelicaWhitewear).

This article examines “undefined” terms (art. 1512 CCQ), an oft-neglected topic in contract law. By leveraging judicial precedent concerning its application, the article identifies conditions for its application and proposes a structured analysis to help courts fix an appropriate term. The proposed analysis will also help to distinguish undefined terms from uncertain terms (art. 1510 CCQ), in the hopes of helping put an end to uncertainties.

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 declaratory judgment is a determination of rights without consequential relief. Declaratory judgments can be highly useful for litigants, but they are also somewhat lacking in doctrinal clarity, raising a number of questions that go to the core of the judicial role. What does it mean to have a legal right, or to declare the existence of a legal right, if that right, while recognized, is not enforced? It has been held that a declaratory judgment is available only when there is a real dispute between the parties, but what is a real legal dispute without legal rights that can be enforced? When is it the business of courts to declare the existence of such a right?