HomeRecent Postspage 16

Recent Posts

The Comeau Decision is a Welcome Example of Serious Doctrinal Analysis

Constitutional law and alcohol are forever linked. Many famous distribution of powers cases giving rise to new federalism doctrine were about alcohol. It should not be a surprise that we can now add another case to the list. R. v. Comeau, coming out of the New Brunswick Provincial Court, is a novel judicial meditation on Canadian federalism, specifically regarding the ...

Read More »

Reaffirming the Case for Constraint: A Reply to Léonid Sirota

Leonid Sirota has written two excellent articles in response to my essay, “The Case for a Constrained Approach to Section 7.” I am grateful for these pieces, firstly, because Mr. Sirota takes the view that my position is “largely misguided,” meaning that he endorses at least some of my views (though perhaps I am channelling Lloyd Christmas a bit on ...

Read More »

Election Promises and Marijuana Policy: What Federalism Has to Offer

Marijuana legalization has officially been announced by Health Minister Jane Philpott for spring of 2017 and the expected outcome, for now at least, is a federally-led initiative. This is the case because section 91(27) of the Constitution Act, 1867 provides Parliament with the power to legislate on issues coming within the purview of the criminal law. That said, if Parliament’s goal is to make marijuana accessible and remove it from the Controlled Drugs ...

Read More »

How to Do Constitutional Adjudication: A Response to Asher Honickman’s Take on the Judicial Role

This is the secondof two articles Mr. Sirota has written in response to Asher Honickman’s essay entitled “The Case for a Constrained Approach to Section 7.”  Mr. Honickman’s reply to follow.  This article was originally published at Double Aspect, Mr. Sirota’s award winning blog.   As I mentioned in my previous post, I would like to respond to a number of points ...

Read More »

Joanna Baron Weighs in on the Right to a Speedy Trial on the CBC

Joanna Baron, Director of the Runnymede Society and member of Advocates for the Rule of Law, was recently interviewed on CBC Radio to discuss the Supreme Court of Canada’s recent decision in R. v. Jordan. In that case, the Court was unanimous in the result, but split 5-4 on the crucial issue of what test the courts ought to apply ...

Read More »

Seven’s Sins? A Response to Asher Honickman’s Take on Section 7 of the Charter

This is the first of two articles Mr. Sirota has written in response to Asher Honickman’s essay entitled “The Case for a Constrained Approach to Section 7.” The second article will be published shortly, following which Mr. Honickman will publish a reply.   This article was originally published at Double Aspect, Mr. Sirota’s award winning blog.   In a very interesting essay written for ...

Read More »

Brexit and the Rule of Law

It took all of us by surprise, but Brexit is putatively happening. The leader of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker aptly deadpanned: Brexit would not be “an amicable divorce”, but “it wasn’t exactly a tight romance to begin with.” A slender democratic majority of UK residents (including foreign residents- well done, civic rights) voted on June 23rd to exit the ...

Read More »

The Supreme Court is Eroding the Bedrock Principle of Stare Decisis

There is an uneasy tension at the heart of Canada’s legal system between the inherent conservatism of our legal principles and the inherent liberalism of the actors tasked with applying them. Traditionally, Supreme Court of Canada decisions were final and binding on lower courts. Today, by the courts’ own doing, this bedrock principle is being eroded. Last week, Ontario’s highest ...

Read More »

The Case for a Constrained Approach to Section 7

This article will appear in the upcoming edition of Law Matters, a publication of the Canadian Bar Association Introduction The consensus in the academic community when it comes to interpreting the Charter is that more is better. There is little debate that the Charter is a “living tree,” such that its meaning must “evolve” over time so that it “accommodates ...

Read More »

Carter Should not be the “Last Word” on Assisted Dying

The Alberta Court of Appeal ruled in May in Canada (AG) v. E.F. that a woman suffering from “severe conversion disorder” — a non-terminal, psychiatric condition that causes physical symptoms — was eligible to receive “aid in dying” under the “criteria” stated in the Supreme Court of Canada’s February 2015 decision on physician-assisted dying, known as Carter I. The Attorney ...

Read More »