scholarly journals Persona Non Grata: The Supreme Court of Canada Further Constrains Public Interest Standing

1994 ◽  
Vol 33 (1) ◽  
pp. 192 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Bowal ◽  
Mark Cranwell
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Supreme Court Of Canada ◽  
The Supreme Court

Public Interest Standing, Access to Justice, and Democracy under the Charter: Canada (AG) v Downtown Eastside Sex Workers United Against Violence

2013 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 21
Author(s):  
Dana Phillips
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Sex Workers ◽  
Access To Justice ◽  
Supreme Court Of Canada ◽  
Downtown Eastside ◽  
The Supreme Court

In 2012 the Supreme Court of Canada issued itsdecision in Canada (AG) v Downtown EastsideSex Workers United Against Violence (SWUAV).1Th e case centered on whether or not thoseinvolved in protecting vulnerable sex workershave standing to challenge the criminalizationof prostitution-related activities on their behalf.SWUAV represents a signifi cant break with previousjurisprudence on standing: it saw the Courttransform its vision of public interest standing,viewing it for the fi rst time as an access to justiceissue.

scholarly journals Crookes v. Newton: The Supreme Court of Canada Brings Libel Law into the Internet Age

2012 ◽  
Vol 50 (1) ◽  
pp. 205
Author(s):  
Iris Fischer ◽  
Adam Lazier
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Supreme Court Of Canada ◽  
Internet Age ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Right ◽  
Defamation Law

After paying little attention to defamation law for decades, in the last few years the Supreme Court of Canada has begun to reshape the field. In what has been described as the “constitutionalization” of defamation law, the Court has recently recognized that the common law was out of step with the right to freedom of expression guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This process began in 2008 with the Court’s decision in WIC Radio v. Simpson, which clarified and expanded the scope of the fair comment defence. The Court went further the following year with Grant v. Torstar Corp, which recognized an entirely new defence of responsible communication on matters of public interest.

Judicial Discretion as Political Choice: The Supreme Court of Canada's Costs Awarding Power

2018 ◽  
Vol 51 (4) ◽  
pp. 929-947
Author(s):  
Emmanuelle Richez ◽  
Erin Crandall
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Original Data ◽  
Access To Justice ◽  
Judicial Discretion ◽  
Supreme Court Of Canada ◽  
Discretionary Power ◽  
Data Set ◽  
Public Interest Litigation ◽  
The Supreme Court

AbstractThis article analyzes an important discretionary power of the Supreme Court of Canada, the ability to award costs. With the use of an original data set, we explore trends in costs awarding in public interest litigation at the Supreme Court from 1970 to 2012. Our findings suggest that, over time, the Court has tended to favour nongovernment parties over government parties where the former are less likely to pay costs when they lose and more likely to receive costs when they win. In these cases, costs orders were more likely to benefit public interest litigants, such as nongovernmental organizations, than individual litigants and businesses. Together, these findings suggest a sensitivity to access to justice concerns when making costs orders, though some may argue that this sensitivity by the Court does not extend far enough.

scholarly journals OPPORTUNITY LOST: THE SUPREME COURT MISSES A HISTORIC CHANCE TO CONSIDER QUESTION OF PUBLIC INTEREST STANDING FOR ANIMAL INTERESTS

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (2) ◽  
pp. 129 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Sankoff
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Present Article ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Supreme Court Of Canada ◽  
Judicial Intervention ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Right ◽  
Court Of Appeal ◽  
Lost Opportunity

The Supreme Court of Canada recently denied leave to appeal in Reece v. Edmonton (City), a 2-1 decision of the Alberta Court of Appeal, which focused on the right of private parties to seek judicial intervention on behalf of animals. In this article, the author examines the implications of this "lost opportunity" to develop an important area of law relating to public interest standing, explores the important questions that were at stake in the appeal, and suggests why the Supreme Court should have decided otherwise.La Cour suprême du Canada a récemment rejeté la demande d’autorisation d’appel de l’affaire Reece v. Edmonton (Ville), – une décision (2 contre 1) de la Cour d’appel de l’Alberta – qui portait sur le droit de simples individus de demander une intervention judiciaire au nom des animaux. Dans le présent article, l’auteur examine les conséquences de cette [TRADUCTION] « occasion ratée » de développer un important domaine du droit relatif à l’intérêt public, et de traiter les questions sérieuses qui étaient soulevées dans l’appel; il tente d’expliquer pourquoi la Cour suprême aurait dû rendre une décision différente.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document