Limiting rights, Canadian style : the Supreme Court of Canada, American jurisprudence and section 1 of the Charter /

The addition of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms represented a fundamental shift in Canadian governance. Many saw the tabling of such a document as a further, even fmal, step towards the Americanization of the Canadian polity. While the Charter's presence has significantly altered the relationship between citizens, government and the courts, it has done so by maintaining the traditional values and experiences that has been the hallmarks of Canadian constitutionalism. This is in contrast to the fears harboured by critics suggesting that the Charter was a further Americanization of the Canadian Polity, notwithstanding the very different natures of the American Bill of Rights and the Canadian Charter. Analyzing American Supreme Court precedent use by the Canadian Supreme Court has demonstrated that such an Americanization has not, in fact, occurred. In the present analysis of American precedent use in section 1 limitation of rights cases, the citation of these precedents are at best episodic, at least on the quantitative level. Qualitatively, the Canadian Supreme Court generally uses American jurisprudence to further support broad definitions of 'great rights' . As for the more intricate details of rights limitations and the process involved in detennining how Charter rights are limited, one would be hard pressed to find even cursory references to American case law.

The measurement of the optical absorption cross section of photosystem 1 and photosystem 2 from whole live cells of porphyridium cruentum, in light state 1 and light state 2

The optical cross section of PS I in whole cells of Porphyridium cruentum (UTEX 161), held in either state 1 or state 2, was determined by measuring the change in absorbance at 820nm, an indication of P700+; the X-section of PS2 was determined by measuring the variable fluorescence, (Fv-Fo)/Fo, from PS2. Both cross-sections were 7 determined by fitting Poisson distribution equations to the light saturation curves obtained with single turnover laser flashes which varied in intensity from zero to a level where maximum yield occurred. Flash wavelengths of 574nm, 626nm, and 668nm were used, energy absorbed by PBS, by PBS and chla, and by chla respectively. There were two populations of both PSi and PS2. A fraction of PSi is associated with PBS, and a fraction of PS2 is free from PBS. On the transition S1->S2, only with PBS-absorbed energy (574nm) did the average X-section of PSi increase (27%), and that of PS2 decrease (40%). The fraction of PSi associated with PBS decreased, from 0.65 to 0.35, and the Xsection of this associated PS 1 increased, from 135±65 A2 to 400±300A2. The cross section of PS2 associated with PBS decreased from 150±50 A2 to 85±45 A2, but the fraction of PS2 associated with PBS, approximately 0.75, did not change significantly. The increase in PSi cross section could not be completely accounted for by postulating that several PSi are associated with a single PBS and that in the transition to state2, fewer PSi share the same number of PBS, resulting in a larger X-section. It is postulated that small changes occur in the attachment of PS2 to PBS causing energy to be diverted to the attached PSi. These experiments support neither the mobile-PBS model of state transitions nor that of spillover. From cross section changes there was no evidence of energy transfer from PS2 to PSi with 668nm light. The decrease in PS2 fluorescence which occurred at this wavelength cannot be explained by energy transfer; another explanation must be sought. No explanation was found for an observed decrease in PSi yield at high flash intensities.

Turbines Plans - General Arrangement of Shaft & Cross Section of Turbine, 1903

Two photographs of turbine drawings from the year 1903. The first drawing is titled "10000HP Turbines. Canadian Niagara Power Company. General Arrangement of Shaft." It was last revised 18 May, 1903. The second drawing is titled "10000HP Turbines Canadian Niagara Power Company. Cross Section of Turbine" This drawing revised 6 May, 1903 and 26 June, 1903.

Second interim report of the Canadian section and first joint report of the International Waterways Commission (1906)

Report of the Canadian section, dated April 25th, 1906, and report of the joint commission, dated May 3d, 1906, related to regulating the uses of the waters of the Niagara River and the preservation of the Falls.