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.

A review of the case of Alexander McLeod: recently determined in the Supreme Court of Judicature of the state of New York (1841)

Alexander McLeod, a British subject, was tried for the murder of Amos Durfee and as an accomplice in the burning of the steamer Caroline, in the Niagara River, during the Canadian rebellion in 1837-1838.

Driedger's 'Modern Principle' at the Supreme Court of Canada: Interpretation, Justification, Legitimization

Un résumé en français est également disponible

The Supreme Court’s Understanding of Federalism: Efficiency at the Expense of Diversity

This paper is an examination of the Supreme Court of Canada's interpretation of federalism since constitutional repatriation in 1982. It argues that the lure of centralist efficiency is overpowering a fundamentally important part of our federal order: regionalism. The author contends that changes made by the Court to certain fundamental concepts of Canadian constitutional law now provide Parliament with greater latitude than before in the exercise of its legislative powers. According to the author, these changes are disturbing because they are structured so as to preclude consideration of the legitimate concerns of regional polities. Furthermore, he argues that the Court has reinforced the central government's power to regulate the economy, including intraprovincial matters affecting trade, by resorting to highly functional tests that emphasize economic efficiency over other criteria. This, he claims, makes it more difficult to invoke legitimate regional interests that would lead to duplication, overlapping and even, in the eyes of some, inefficiency. The author the focuses on the Court's treatment of environmental protection in an attempt to show the tension between the Court's desire to use a functional approach and the need to recognize regional interests. Finally, through an examination of recent case law, he attemps to demonstrate that the Court's dominant perspective remains functional despite its endorsement of a more community-oriented undestanding of federalism in Secession Reference. If the Court chooses to proceed in this manner, it will alienate regional polities and may encourage them to choose more radical means of asserting their differences. Further, the author argues that strict adherence to the functional effectiveness approach will undermine the very values that federalism is meant to promote.

The Supreme Court of Canada Ruling in Carter v. Canada: A New Era of End-of-Life Care for Canadians

La tribune de l'éditeur / Editor's Soapbox

The Supreme Court Confirmation Process and Its Implications

In recent history, there has been a trend of increasing partisan polarization throughout most of the American political system. Some of the impacts of this polarization are obvious; however, there is reason to believe that we miss some of the indirect effects of polarization. Accompanying the trend of increased polarization has been an increase in the contentiousness of the Supreme Court confirmation process. I believe that these two trends are related. Furthermore, I argue that these trends have an impact on judicial behavior. This is an issue worth exploring, since the Supreme Court is the most isolated branch of the federal government. The Constitution structured the Supreme Court to ensure that it was as isolated as possible from short-term political pressures and interests. This study attempts to show how it may be possible that those goals are no longer being fully achieved. My first hypothesis in this study is that increases in partisan polarization are a direct cause of the increase in the level of contention during the confirmation process. I then hypothesize that the more contention a justice faces during his or her confirmation process, the more ideologically extreme that justice will then vote on the bench. This means that a nominee appointed by a Republican president will tend to vote even more conservatively than was anticipated following a contentious confirmation process, and vice versa for Democratic appointees. In order to test these hypotheses, I developed a data set for every Supreme Court nominee dating back to President Franklin D. Roosevelt¿s appointments (1937). With this data set, I ran a series of regression models to analyze these relationships. Statistically speaking, the results support my first hypothesis in a fairly robust manner. My regression results for my second hypothesis indicate that the trend I am looking for is present for Republican nominees. For Democratic nominees, the impacts are less robust. Nonetheless, as the results will show, contention during the confirmation process does seem to have some impact on judicial behavior. Following my quantitative analysis, I analyze a series of case studies. These case studies serve to provide tangible examples of these statistical trends as well as to explore what else may be going on during the confirmation process and subsequent judicial decision-making. I use Justices Stevens, Rehnquist, and Alito as the subjects for these case studies. These cases will show that the trends described above do seem to be identifiable at the level of an individual case. These studies further help to indicate other potential impacts on judicial behavior. For example, following Justice Rehnquist¿s move from Associate to Chief Justice, we see a marked change in his behavior. Overall, this study serves as a means of analyzing some of the more indirect impacts of partisan polarization in modern politics. Further, the study offers a means of exploring some of the possible constraints (both conscious and subconscious) that Supreme Court justices may feel while they decide how to cast a vote in a particular case. Given the wide-reaching implications of Supreme Court decisions, it is important to try to grasp a full view of how these decisions are made.

Kontent i Pravo v. Masterhost Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation, Judgment of 23 December 2008, Nr. 10962/08 Translation and Comment

This Judgment by the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation can be considered as a landmark ruling for Internet Service Provider’s (ISP) liability. The Court stipulates for the first time concise principles under which circumstances an ISP shall be exempt from liability for transmitting copyright infringing content. But due to the legislation on ISP liability in the Russian Federation it depends on the type of information which rules of liability apply to ISP. As far as a violation of intellectual property rights is claimed, the principles given now by the Supreme Arbitration Court are applicable, which basically follow the liability limitations of the so called EU E-Commerce Directive. But, furthermore, preventive measures that are provided in service provider contracts to suppress a violation through the use of services should be taken into account as well. On the other hand, as far as other information is concerned the limitations of the respective Information Law might be applicable which stipulates different liability requirements. This article gives a translation of the Supreme Arbitration Court’s decision as well as a comment on its key rulings with respect to the legal framework and on possible consequences for practice.

Members of "The Samoan Expeditionary Force" who made the supreme sacrifice in the Great War, 1914-1918

[by Stephen John Smith, late 5th (Wellington) Regiment, secretary Samoa administration in military occupation, 1915-1918]