scholarly journals Political Accountability in Appointments to the Supreme Court of Canada

2016 ◽  
Vol 25 (3) ◽  
pp. 109
Author(s):  
John D Whyte
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Formal Structure ◽  
Supreme Court Of Canada ◽  
Political Accountability ◽  
Legal Process ◽  
Political Partisanship ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Parliamentary Committee ◽  
Partisan Conflict

There are many issues related to the method and formal structure of a hearing process. There are also legitimate concerns about the damage that might be done to the Supreme Court or the judicial branch generally by hearings, chiefly the risk of political partisanship in the review process, which might be perpetuated through politically partisan conflict among the members of the Court. Neither the issues of implementation nor strategies for reducing the risks of injuring the Supreme Court’s reputation or eroding confidence in the legal process through coarse politicization of a hearing process are addressed in this paper, although they are hardly insignificant concerns. The matters discussed in this article are, first, the case for instituting legislative hearings and, second, assessing the value of hearings in terms in light of the types of questions that can properly be explored in hearings before a parliamentary committee.

scholarly journals What has Dunsmuir Taught?

2010 ◽  
pp. 1017
Author(s):  
Alice Woolley ◽  
Shaun Fluker
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Functional Test ◽  
Supreme Court Of Canada ◽  
Review Analysis ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Majority Judgment ◽  
Administrative Tribunal

In Dunsmuir the Supreme Court of Canada reassessed the “troubling question” of how courts should review decisions of administrative tribunals. The majority judgment of Bastarache and LeBel JJ. (writing also for McLachlin, Abella, and Fish JJ.), sought to simplify the judicial review process by reducing the standards of review from three to two, increasing reliance on precedent to determine which standard is appropriate, making explicit the significance of the nature of the question to the determination of the standard in every case, and re-labelling the “pragmatic and functional” test the “standard of review analysis.” In its recent judgment in Khosa the Supreme Court emphasized the simplifying intention of Dunsmuir, suggesting that “Dunsmuir teaches that judicial review should be less concerned with the formulation of different standards of review and more focused on substance, particularly on the nature of the issue that was before the administrative tribunal under review.”

scholarly journals Une doctrine d'abus de procédure revigorée en droit pénal canadien

2005 ◽  
Vol 24 (3) ◽  
pp. 673-698
Author(s):  
Rachel Grondin
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Supreme Court Of Canada ◽  
Legal Process ◽  
Canadian Charter ◽  
American Experience ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Abuse Of Law ◽  
The U.S

This article examines the doctrine of abuse of process in Canadian criminal law in the light of two recent events, the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Amato c. R. and the adoption of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The consideration of Amato v. R. in the firts part of the article shows that the majority of judges of the Supreme Court support the existence of the doctrine of abuse of law, and their reasons for this are examined. The effects of the Charter upon such a doctrine is demonstrated in the second part. The American experience is cited, showing the interrelationship of the U.S. Constitution and the doctrine of abuse of process. This is followed by a comparative table of Canadian cases in which the procedure was halted either because of the doctrine or by virtue of the Charter, particularly s. 24(1) which permits judges to stay proceedings for reasons of infringement or denial of guaranteed rights or freedoms. The article concludes that the doctrine has not been superceded by the Charter, but rather that it plays an important role par ailed to it : the former protects the integrity of the legal process while the latter safeguards the rights of the individual.

The concept of human dignity in the case-law of the Supreme Court of Canada on Charter Equality Rights

2021 ◽  
Vol 30 (5) ◽  
pp. 118-137
Author(s):  
Tatiana Vasilieva ◽  
Keyword(s):  
South Africa ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Human Dignity ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Supreme Court Of Canada ◽  
Equality Rights ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Additional Burden ◽  
The Impact

This article explores the evolution of the Supreme Court of Canada’s approach to the application of the concept of human dignity in constitutional equality cases. Traditionally, in human rights cases, this concept serves only to strengthen the argument, to show that the violation affects the person’s intrinsic worth. It is only in Canada and in South Africa that there is experience in applying the concept as a criterion for identifying discrimination. In 1999, in Law v. Canada, the Supreme Court recognized the purpose of Article 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms of 1982 to be the protection of human dignity and stated that discrimination must be established based on assessment of the impact of a program or law on human dignity. However, in 2008, in R. v. Kapp, the Court noted that the application of the concept of human dignity creates difficulties and places an additional burden of prove on the plaintiff. It is no coincidence that victims of discrimination have preferred to seek protection before human rights tribunals and commissions, where the dignity-based test is not used. Subsequently, the Supreme Court of Canada rejected the use of the concept of human dignity as a criterion for identifying discrimination. The unsuccessful experience of applying the concept of human dignity as legal test has demonstrated that not every theoretically correct legal construction is effective in adjudication.

Judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada of February 28, 2020, on Nevsun v. Araya: a “quiet revolution” in the assessment of the status of corporations under public international law?

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 25-39
Author(s):  
Vera Rusinova ◽  
Olga Ganina
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
International Law ◽  
Supreme Court Of Canada ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
Public International Law ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
International Human

The article analyses the Judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada on the Nevsun v. Araya case, which deals with the severe violations of human rights, including slavery and forced labor with respect of the workers of Eritrean mines owned by a Canadian company “Nevsun”. By a 5 to 4 majority, the court concluded that litigants can seek compensation for the violations of international customs committed by a company. This decision is underpinned by the tenets that international customs form a part of Canadian common law, companies can bear responsibility for violations of International Human Rights Law, and under ubi jus ibi remedium principle plaintiffs have a right to receive compensation under national law. Being a commentary to this judgment the article focuses its analysis on an issue that is of a key character for Public International Law, namely on the tenet that international customs impose obligations to respect human rights on companies and they can be called for responsibility for these violations. This conclusion is revolutionary in the part in which it shifts the perception of the companies’ legal status under International Law. The court’s approach is critically assessed against its well-groundness and correspondence to the current stage of International law. In particular, the authors discuss, whether the legal stance on the Supreme Court of Canada, under which companies can bear responsibility for violations of International Human Rights Law is a justified necessity or a head start.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document