Your search
Results 16 resources
-
This new edition sets out what the law of remedies actually is in Australia. Written in simple to understand language, the book delivers what students and practitioners want and their clients need, with each chapter ending with a series of questions and answers
-
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.
-
Le privilège parlementaire, essentiel au bon fonctionnement du parlementarisme canadien, est trop souvent mal compris par les tribunaux, mais également par les parlementaires eux-mêmes, qui vont parfois l’invoquer de manière abusive. Depuis l’avènement de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés, les tribunaux tentent, avec un succès mitigé, de réconcilier le privilège parlementaire avec les droits et libertés constitutionnels. À l’aide d’une étude de la jurisprudence et de la doctrine, l’auteur analyse de manière critique le modèle canadien de privilège parlementaire. Il tente tout d’abord de bien comprendre les bases historiques et constitutionnelles du privilège au Canada. Par la suite, il circonscrit les principaux problèmes de l’approche de la Cour suprême du Canada en la matière pour ensuite proposer des pistes de solution, adressées aux tribunaux, mais aussi aux parlementaires, afin de mieux adapter le privilège parlementaire aux réalités du xxie siècle.
-
"Class actions are increasingly playing a significant role in providing access to justice to people who have experienced a common wrong. The volume of class actions jurisprudence in Canada has increased exponentially in recent years. Containing insights from two of the foremost Canadian class action jurists and a leading academic in the field, this text offers a comprehensive review of the ever-expanding law of class actions from trial and appellate courts across Canada"--Publisher.
-
Prisons present a special context for the interpretation of constitutional rights, where prisoner complaints are pitched against the justifications of prison administrators. In the United States, the history of prisoner rights can be told as a story of the ebb and flow of judicial willingness to defer to the expertise-infused claims of prison administrators. Deference is ostensibly justified by a judicial worry that prison administrators possess specialized knowledge and navigate unique risks, beyond the purview of courts. In recent years, expansive judicial deference in the face of “correctional expertise” has eroded the scope and viability of prisoners’ rights, serving to restore elements of the historical category of “civil death” to the legal conception of the American prisoner. In Canada too, courts have often articulated standards of extreme deference to prison administrators, both before and after the advent of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and notwithstanding that the Charter places a burden on government to justify any infringement of rights. Recently, however, two cases from the Supreme Court of British Columbia mark a break from excessive deference and signify the (late) arrival of a Charter-based prison jurisprudence. In each case, prisoner success depended on expert evidence that challenged the assertions and presumed expertise of institutional defendants. In order to prove a rights infringement and avoid justification under section 1, the evidence must illuminate and specify the effects of penal techniques and policies on both prisoners and third parties. The litigation must interrogate the internal penal world, including presumptions about the workings of prisoner society and conceptions of risk management.
Explore
Resource type
- Book (6)
- Book Section (2)
- Journal Article (8)