HomeAuthor Archives: Asher Honickman (page 4)

Author Archives: Asher Honickman

Debating Free Trade

On January 7, 2017, I had the honour of discussing and debating s.121 of the Constitution Act, 1867 with the prolific columnist and intellectual, John Robson, and Ian Blue Q.C., counsel for the defendant in the now famous case, R. v. Comeau. The debate was part of the Canadian Constitution Foundation’s Law & Freedom Conference, which took place between January ...

Read More »

The Paradoxical Presumption of Constitutionality

INTRODUCTION Should the courts, in judicially reviewing legislation, employ a presumption constitutionality? Should they, in other words, presume that a law enacted by Parliament or the provincial legislatures is constitutionally valid, rebutting that presumption only in the face of convincing evidence? The answer to this question is not as clear as one might suppose. In the context of the division ...

Read More »

The 2017 Law & Freedom Conference

The Canadian Constitution Foundation will host its annual Law & Freedom Conference between January 6 – 8, 2017. The conference will be held at Hart House at the University of Toronto, which located at 7 Hart House Circle. This year’s speakers include the Honourable Chief Justice Glenn D. Joyal of the Manitoba Court of Queen’s Bench, Professor Emmett Macfarlane of ...

Read More »

A Marriage Made in Britain: Section 121 and the Division of Powers

The New Brunswick Court of Appeal will hear the Crown’s appeal in R. v. Comeau this coming month. The issue for appeal is whether Justice LeBlanc of the New Brunswick Provincial Court got it right in finding that s.121 of the Constitution Act, 1867 prohibits both tariff and non-tariff barriers between the provinces, overturning the Supreme Court of Canada’s precedent ...

Read More »

Recognizing ARL’s Contribution

I am deeply honoured to have been nominated for Samara’s Everyday Political Citizen, an annual contest that profiles ordinary people working to strengthen their communities and our democracy. This nomination is a reflection of the good work ARL has done over the last two years and I share it with all the ARL members and everyone else who has helped contribute to ...

Read More »

Seven’s Wonders and Sixty Colours: More on the Interpretation of Section 7

In my last article, “Reaffirming the Case for Constraint“, I replied to Leonid Sirota’s article “How to do Constitutional Adjudication,” which was itself a response to my paper, “The Case for a Constrained Approach to Section 7.” Mr. Sirota also wrote a piece entitled “Seven’s Sins” in response to my original paper. I had intended to reply to “Seven’s Sins” ...

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 »

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 »

Court Slashes Lawyer’s Contingency Fee in Favour of Minor Plaintiff

In Batalla v. St. Michael’s Hospital,  the plaintiffs alleged that the physician and nurses who delivered the minor plaintiff did so negligently and caused the minor plaintiff to suffer severe brain damage. He was born with very limited cognitive functioning, impaired motor skills and visual impairments. The parties settled the matter following a mediation in April 2014 for the all-inclusive sum of $6,625,000. Pursuant to Rule 7 ...

Read More »

Substantially Incontestable: Discriminatory Wills and the Future of the Public Policy Exception

Should racist wills be void on public policy grounds? This issue has arisen in a number of cases over the last couple of years, most recently in Spence v. BMO Trust Company  [“Spence“]. In that case, the deceased disinherited his daughter and the daughter alleged that her disinheritance was motivated by racial animus. The Ontario Court of Appeal upheld the ...

Read More »