DOCSLIB.ORG

DICKSON, Rt. Hon. R.G. Brian MG 31, E 85

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
DICKSON, Rt. Hon. R.G. Brian MG 31, E 85 DICKSON, Rt. Hon. R.G. Brian MG 31, E 85 Finding Aid No. 1971 / Instrument de recherche no 1971 Prepared in 1994 by Dale Cameron for the Préparé en 1994 par Dale Cameron pour la Public Archives Section and revised in 2000 Section des archives publiques et révisé en by Danny Moore & Michel Guénette for the l’an 2000 par Danny Moore & Michel Economic and Governance Archives Section. Guénette pour la Section des archives sur l’économie et la gestion publique. ii Note concerning the Chief Justice Dicksons’s case files First as puisne justice and then as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, Brian Dickson created files, virtually all of which survive, for each case in which he was a member of the judges panel. In the following finding aid, the files in which the majority judgement was written by Dickson include the word Judgement in the Subject column. Where Dickson wrote the dissenting opinion and this is known, the file is indicated with the word Dissenting in the Subject column. Many of the case files reached a substantial size and these have been physically divided for conservation purposes. Their intellectual unity is maintained with the same file name and the numbering in brackets. Where possible the Supreme Court Law Report reference is given for every case at the end of the title. The date colum for the case files indicates the day on which judgement was pronounced. The majority of the case files, particularly the judgements or dissents written by Dickson, contain the judgement, memos between Dickson and his law clerk(s) or fellow justices, copies of lower court judgements which have been annotated or extracted from in the course of Dickson’s deliberations, a photocopy of the envelope which orginally contained the file noting the position of each member of the panel of justices hearing the case, and motions, briefs etc. submitted to the court. iii Table of Contents BENCH BOOKS FROM MANITOBA COURTS.........................1, 176 PAPERS CONCERNING THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA................ 3 Judgements ................................................ 3 Motion Books .............................................146 Leaves to appeal and applications ................................146 Administrative & Subject Files..................................147 Administrative & Subject Files (continued) ..........................164 Canadian Judicial Council .....................................169 Administrative & Subject Files..................................169 Canadian Judicial Council .....................................172 Administrative & Subject Files..................................175 PERSONAL PAPERS OF BRIAN DICKSON.............................151 Speeches ................................................151 Files Related to Other Military Subjects ............................176 Reference Material (black binders)................................176 Agendas.................................................176 Correspondence ............................................177 Memoranda ..............................................177 Invitations ...............................................177 Conferences ..............................................179 Visits...................................................180 Associations / Organisations....................................181 Charter of Rights and Freedoms .................................185 Constitution ..............................................186 Royal Commission on Electoral Reform and Party Financing...............187 Aboriginals...............................................187 Free Trade...............................................197 Ontario Hydro Arbitration.....................................199 Special Commission on the Restructuring of the Reserves.................203 Special Advisory Group on Military Justice and Military Police Investigation Services 210 Files Related to Other Military Subjects ............................215 Nomination...............................................216 Awards .................................................217 Speeches ................................................217 Reference material (black binders)................................220 OVERSIZE DOCUMENTS.........................................229 iv Table des Matières LIVRES D’AUDIENCE DES COURS DU MANITOBA....................1, 176 DOCUMENTS RELATIFS À LA COUR SUPRÊME DU CANADA............... 3 Jugements................................................. 3 Livres de requêtes ..........................................146 Autorisations d’appel et demandes d’autorisation.......................146 Dossiers administratifs et thématiques..............................147 Dossiers administratifs et thématiques (continuation) ....................164 Conseil canadien de la magistrature ...............................169 Dossiers administratifs et thématiques..............................169 Conseil canadien de la magistrature ...............................172 Dossiers administratifs et thématiques..............................175 DOCUMENTS PERSONNELS DE BRIAN DICKSON.......................151 Discours ................................................151 Autres dossiers relatifs aux sujets militaires ..........................176 Matériel de référence (cartables noirs) .............................176 Agendas.................................................176 Correspondance ............................................177 Mémorandums ............................................177 Invitations ...............................................177 Conférences ..............................................179 Visites..................................................180 Associations / Organisations....................................181 Charte des droits et libertés ....................................185 Constitution ..............................................186 Commission royale sur la réforme électorale et le financement des partis.......187 Premières nations...........................................187 Libre échange.............................................197 Arbitrage: Ontario Hydro .....................................199 Commission spéciale sur la restructuration des réserves ..................203 Groupe consultatif spécial sur la justice militaire et les services d’enquête de la police militaire ............................................210 Autres dossiers relatifs aux sujets militaires ..........................215 Nomination...............................................216 Récompenses .............................................217 Discours ................................................217 Matériel de référence (cartables noirs) .............................220 DOCUMENTS DE GRANDE DIMENSION..............................229 DICKSON, Rt. Hon. R.G. Brian MG 31, E 85 Vol. File Subject Date BENCH BOOKS FROM MANITOBA COURTS (1963-1973 / vols. 1-5, see also 157) 1 1 Bench book. Circuit. No. 1 17 Dec 1963 - 14 Apr 1964 1 2 Bench book. Circuit. No. 2 20 Apr 1964 - 11 Mar 1965 1 3 Bench book. Circuit. No. 3 11 Mar 1965 - 5 May 1966 1 4 Bench book. Circuit. No. 4 5 May 1966 - 22 Dec 1966 1 5 Bench book. Assize. No. 1 3 Feb 1964 - 12 Nov 1964 1 6 Bench book. Assize. No. 2 1 Jan 1965 - 21 Jun 1966 1 7 Bench book. Assize. No. 3 1 Jun 1966 - 18 May 1967 1 8 Bench book. Assize. No. 4 1 May 1967 - 29 May 1967 1 9 Bench book. Civil. No. 1 2 Dec 1963 - 27 Jan 1964 2 1 Bench book. Civil. No. 2 9 Mar 1964 - 7 May 1964 2 2 Bench book. Civil. No. 3 8 May 1964 - [23 Oct 1964] 2 3 Bench book. Civil. No. 4 23 Oct 1964 - 5 Apr 1965 2 4 Bench book. Civil. No. 5 5 Apr 1965 - 5 May 1965 2 Dickson, Rt. Hon. R.G. Brian MG 31, E 85 Vol. File Subject Date 2 5 Bench book. Civil. No. 6 5 May 1965 - 10 Jun 1965 2 6 Bench book. Civil. No. 7 10 Jun 1965 - 15 Nov 1965 2 7 Bench book. Civil. No. 8 15 Nov 1965 - 15 Mar 1966 2 8 Bench book. Civil. No. 9 15 Mar 1966 - 2 Jun 1966 2 9 Bench book. Civil. No. 10 2 Jun 1966 - 29 Nov 1966 3 1 Bench book. Civil. No. 11 12 Dec 1966 - 21 Feb 1967 3 2 Bench book. Civil. No. 12 21 Feb 1967 - 18 Apr 1967 3 3 Bench book. Civil. No. 13 18 Apr 1967 - 22 Jun 1967 3 4 Bench book. Civil. No. 14 22 Jun 1967 - 30 Jun 1967 3 5 Bench book. Divorce. No. 1 10 Dec 1963 - 8 Dec 1963 [really 1964] 3 6 Bench book. Divorce. No. 2 8 Dec 1964 - 1 Sep 1966 3 7 Bench book. Divorce. No. 3 1 Sep 1966 - 28 Jun 1967 3 8 Bench book. Chambers. No. 1 9 Dec 1963 - 7 Dec 1964 4 1 Bench book. Chambers. No. 2 7 Dec 1964 - 6 Jan 1966 4 2 Bench book. Chambers. No. 3 12 Jan 1966 - 8 Jun 1967 4 3 Bench book. Chambers. No. 4 19 Jun 1967 - 31 Jun 1967 MG 31, E 85 Dickson, Rt. Hon. R.G. Brian 3 Vol. File Subject Date 4 4 Bench book. Ad hoc. 18 Mar 1966 - [9 Jun 1967] 4 5 Bench book. Court of Appeal. No. 1 8 Aug 1967 - 29 Apr 1968 4 6 Bench book. Court of Appeal. No. 2 30 Apr 1968 - 8 Mar 1969 4 7 Bench book. Court of Appeal. No. 3 10 Mar 1969 - 31 Dec 1969 4 8 Bench book. Court of Appeal. No. 4 1 Jan 1970 - 30 Nov 1970 5 1 Bench book. Court of Appeal. No. 5 1 Dec 1970 - 5 Oct 1971 5 2 Bench book. Court of Appeal. No. 6 12 Oct 1971 - 23 Nov 1972 5 3 Bench book. Court of Appeal. No. 7 23 Nov 1972 - 23 Mar 1973 PAPERS CONCERNING THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (1973-1990 / vols. 6-138, also see 140-157) Judgements 6 1 Laiterie Thérésienne Inc. versus Office des Autoroutes du 24 May 1973 Québec. [1974 S.C.R. 435] 6 2 Emile Walters et al versus Essex County Board of Education. 29 Jun 1973 [1974 S.C.R. 481] 6 3 Lucien Savard versus La cité de Chicoutimi. [1974 S.C.R. 29 Jun 1973 1037] 6 4 Leonard
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Died 14 August, 1902
    LAGROW FAMILY Jeremiah Lagrow (Sr) - born 14 July, 1836 - died 14 August, 1902 - buried at Sacred Heart of Jesus Catholic Cemetery, Marmora - refer to his upright monument at Panel 3 - married Rose Pijon - Rose born circa 1840 - buried 1 March, 1911 at Sacred Heart Cemetery, Marmora - her name is not inscribed on their monument Known children Levi Lagrow born circa 1852 Jeremiah Lagrow born circa 1853 John Lagrow born circa 1854 Thomas Lagrow born circa 1855 George Edward Lagrow born 8-January, 1857 ??? Mary Lavine Lagrow born circa 1859 Levi Lagrow horn circa 1860 Adeline Lagrow born circa 1861 Margaret Lagrow born circa 1862 Catherine Jane Lagrow born circa 1864 Mary Florence Lagrow born 22 September, 1877 /Th John Lagrow Th - born circa 1854 , Trois Riviètes - died circa 1941 - interred at Haileyburg, Ontario - married Mary Anne Demurs on 3 Oct., 1875 at Sacred Heart of Mary Catholic Church, Madoc, Ontario - Mary Anne born 2 January, 1857, Marmora - daughter of Emery Deinars (1824-1895) and Margaret Terrion (1824-1916) - Mary Anne died 11 June, 1947 in Haileyburg, Known children - Jeremiah Lagrow - born 16 November, 1876 - married Jessie Dillworth on 26 Aug, 1901 at Sacred Heart Church, Marinora - living in Marmora in 1947 John Lagrow - born ??? - married Nona Forestell on 17 Nov, 1903 at Sacred Heart Church,Marmora - living at Duparquel Que. in 1947 Thomas Lagrow - born ???? - living in Toronto in 1947 William Joseph Lagrow - born 27 July, 1892 - living at New Liskeard in 1947 Marguerite Helena Lagrow - born 5 November, 1885 - married Henry Jackson on 22 April, 1903 at Sacred Heart Church, Marmora - living in Harley Township in 1947 Catherine Christina Lagrow - born 14 May, 1895 - married William McIntyre - living in Haileyburg in 1947 Mary Rostta Lagrow - born 12 September, 1888 - married Henry Augusta Bertrand on 12 January, 1909 at White River, Ont - living in Haileyburg in 1947 pm MRS.
    [Show full text]
  • COURT JUSTICES, 1985-2013 Jean-Christophe Bédard-Rubin
    Paper prepared for the 2018 CPSA Annual Conference – Please do not cite nor circulate without permission HOW MUCH FRENCH DO THEY SPEAK ANYWAY? A BILINGUALISM INDEX FOR SUPREME COURT JUSTICES, 1985-2013 Jean-Christophe Bédard-Rubin & Tiago Rubin Draft paper prepared for the CPSA 2018 Annual Conference. Please do not cite nor circulate without permission. Mandatory bilingualism for Supreme Court judges tantalizes Canadian politics for at least ten years now. The advocates of judicial bilingualism have repeatedly tried (and failed) to enshrine into law the requirement for Supreme Court justices to be functionally bilingual, i.e. the ability to “read materials and understand oral argument without the need for translation or interpretation in French and English”. For them, integrating mandatory bilingualism as a legislative requirement in the appointment process is a panacea. Their opponents argue that language proficiency in French should not be a sine qua non condition for Supreme Court justiceship and that requiring it would prevent excellent candidates from being appointed. However, despite the fact that empirical statements abound on both sides, there is very little empirical evidence regarding the actual impact of unilingualism and bilingualism on Canadian judicial institutions and simply no evidence whatsoever about its impact on individual judges’ behavior. Building on our ongoing research on judicial bilingualism, in this paper we try to evaluate the level of bilingualism of individual justices. What our findings suggest is that the behavior of Francophone and Anglophone bilinguals is influenced by the linguistic competency of their colleagues. Our findings also suggest that some Anglophone justices that are deemed to be bilinguals do not behave very differently from their unilingual colleagues.
    [Show full text]
  • 644 CANADA YEAR BOOK Governments. the Primary Basis For
    644 CANADA YEAR BOOK governments. The primary basis for the division is important issue of law that ought to be decided by the found in Section 2 ofthe criminal code. The attorney court. Leave to appeal may also be given by a general of a province is given responsibility for provincial appellate court when one of itsjudgments proceedings under the criminal code. The attorney is sought to be questioned in the Supreme Court of general of Canada is given responsibility for criminal Canada. proceedings in Northwest Territories and Yukon, and The court will review cases coming from the 10 for proceedings under federal statutes other than the provincial courts of appeal and from the appeal criminal code. Provincial statute and municipal division ofthe Federal Court of Canada. The court is bylaw prosecutions are the responsibility ofthe also required to consider and advise on questions provincial attorney general. referred to it by the Governor-in-Council. It may also Prosecutions may be carried out by the police or advise the Senate or the House of Commons on by lawyers, depending on the practice ofthe attorney private bills referred to the court under any rules or general responsible. If he prosecutes using lawyers, orders of the Senate or of the House of Commons. the attorney general may rely on full-time staff The Supreme Court sits only in Ottawa and its lawyers, or he may engage the services of a private sessions are open to the public. A quorum consists of practitioner for individual cases. five members, but the full court of nine sits in most A breakdown of criminal prosecution expenditures cases; however, in a few cases, five are assigned to sit, by level of government in 1981-82 shows that 75% and sometimes seven, when a member is ill or was paid by the provinces (excluding Alberta), 24% disqualifies himself Since most of the cases have by the federal government and 1% by the territories.
    [Show full text]
  • Are Hate Speech Provisions Anti-Democratic?: an International Perspective Robin Edger
    American University International Law Review Volume 26 | Issue 1 Article 6 2010 Are Hate Speech Provisions Anti-democratic?: An International Perspective Robin Edger Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/auilr Part of the Human Rights Law Commons, and the International Law Commons Recommended Citation Edger, Robin. "Are Hate Speech Provisions Anti-democratic?: An International Perspective." American University International Law Review 26 no. 1 (2010): 119-155. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Washington College of Law Journals & Law Reviews at Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in American University International Law Review by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ARE HATE SPEECH PROVISIONS ANTI- DEMOCRATIC?: AN INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVE ROBIN EDGER* INTRODUCTION ........................................................................... 119 I. INTERNATIONAL COVENANTS TO WHICH CANADA IS A PARTY .............................................................................. 126 A. THE UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS .............. 126 B. INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS ................................................................................. 130 C. CONVENTION ON THE ELIMINATION OF DISCRIMINATION ...... 134 1. Due Regard Clause .........................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Chief Justice Rued Abortion Ruling, Book Says
    Chief justice rued abortion ruling, book says Text based on Dickson's private papers gives insight into Supreme Court rulings By KIRK MAKIN From Friday's Globe and Mail (December 5, 2003) Years after he voted to reverse Henry Morgentaler's 1974 jury acquittal on charges of performing illegal abortions, chief justice Brian Dickson of the Supreme Court of Canada began to regret his harsh decision, says a new book on the late legendary judge. He stepped down from the bench in 1990 and died in 1998 at the age of 82. "In retrospect, it may not have been the wisest thing to do," chief justice Dickson is quoted as saying in the book, based on interviews and 200 boxes of private papers. He was privately horrified by a defence strategy predicated on Dr. Morgentaler's belief that an individual can ignore the law if his cause is sufficiently virtuous, according to the authors of Brian Dickson: A Judge's Journey . When Dr. Morgentaler again came before the court in 1988, chief justice Dickson suddenly found himself holding the swing vote during a private conference of the seven judges who heard the case. With his brethren deadlocked 3-3, the book says, chief justice Dickson saw a way to come full circle. This time, he voted to strike down the abortion law. However, he based his decision on the unconstitutionality of a cumbersome procedure for approving abortions, allowing him to uphold the acquittal but avoid sanctifying Dr. Morgentaler's decision to flout the law. "Dickson now accepted many of the same arguments that had failed to move him or any member of the Court in the Morgentaler 1," say the authors, Ontario Court of Appeal Judge Robert Sharpe and Kent Roach, a University of Toronto law professor.
    [Show full text]
  • Report on Transformation: a Leaner NDHQ?
    • INDEPENDENT AND INFORMED • AUTONOME ET RENSEIGNÉ ON TRACK The Conference of Defence Associations Institute • L’Institut de la Conférence des Associations de la Défense Autumn 2011 • Volume 16, Number 3 Automne 2011 • Volume 16, Numéro 3 REPORT ON TRANSFORMATION: A leaner NDHQ? Afghanistan: Combat Mission Closure Reflecting on Remembrance ON TRACK VOLUME 16 NUMBER 3: AUTUMN / AUTOMNE 2011 PRESIDENT / PRÉSIDENT Dr. John Scott Cowan, BSc, MSc, PhD VICE PRESIDENT / VICE PRÉSIDENT Général (Ret’d) Raymond Henault, CMM, CD CDA INSTITUTE BOARD OF DIRECTORS LE CONSEIL D’ADMINISTRATION DE L’INSTITUT DE LA CAD EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR / DIRECTEUR EXÉCUTIF Colonel (Ret) Alain M. Pellerin, OMM, CD, MA Admiral (Ret’d) John Anderson SECRETARY-TREASURER / SECRÉTAIRE TRÉSORIER Mr. Thomas d’Aquino Lieutenant-Colonel (Ret’d) Gordon D. Metcalfe, CD Dr. David Bercuson HONOURARY COUNSEL / AVOCAT-CONSEIL HONORAIRE Dr. Douglas Bland Mr. Robert T. Booth, QC, B Eng, LL B Colonel (Ret’d) Brett Boudreau DIRECTOR OF RESEARCH / Dr. Ian Brodie DIRECTEUR DE LA RECHERCHE Mr. Paul Chapin, MA Mr. Thomas S. Caldwell Mr. Mel Cappe PUBLIC AFFAIRS / RELATIONS PUBLIQUES Captain (Ret’d) Peter Forsberg, CD Mr. Jamie Carroll Dr. Jim Carruthers DEFENCE POLICY ANALYSTS / ANALYSTES DES POLITIQUES DE DÉFENSE Mr. Paul H. Chapin Ms. Meghan Spilka O’Keefe, MA Mr. Terry Colfer Mr. Arnav Manchanda, MA M. Jocelyn Coulon Mr. Dave Perry, MA Dr. John Scott Cowan PROJECT OFFICER / AGENT DE PROJET Mr. Dan Donovan Mr. Paul Hillier, MA Lieutenant-général (Ret) Richard Evraire Conference of Defence Associations Institute Honourary Lieutenant-Colonel Justin Fogarty 151 Slater Street, Suite 412A Ottawa ON K1P 5H3 Colonel, The Hon.
    [Show full text]
  • Court of Appeal for Ontario
    COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: Reference re Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, 2019 ONCA 544 DATE: 20190628 DOCKET: C65807 Strathy C.J.O., Hoy A.C.J.O., MacPherson, Sharpe and Huscroft JJ.A. IN THE MATTER OF A REFERENCE to the Court of Appeal pursuant to section 8 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.34, by Order-in-Council 1014/2018 respecting the constitutionality of the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, Part 5 of the Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 1, S.C. 2018, c. 12 Josh Hunter, Padraic Ryan and Thomas Lipton, for the Attorney General of Ontario Sharlene Telles-Langdon, Christine Mohr, Mary Matthews and Neil Goodridge, for the Attorney General of Canada William E. Gould, for the intervener Attorney General of New Brunswick J. Gareth Morley, for the intervener Attorney General of British Columbia P. Mitch McAdam, Q.C. and Alan Jacobson, for the intervener Attorney General of Saskatchewan Stuart Wuttke and Adam S.R. Williamson, for the intervener Assembly of First Nations Amir Attaran, for the intervener Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation Stewart Elgie, for the intervener Canada’s Ecofiscal Commission Joseph F. Castrilli and Richard D. Lindgren, for the interveners Canadian Environmental Law Association, Environmental Defence, and Sisters of Providence of St. Vincent de Paul Jennifer King, Michael Finley and Liane Langstaff, for the intervener Canadian Public Health Association R. Bruce E. Hallsor, Q.C., Christine Van Geyn and Aaron Wudrick, for the intervener Canadian Taxpayers Federation David Robitaille,
    [Show full text]
  • Rt. Hon. Beverley Mclachlin, P.C. Chief Justice of Canada
    Published July 2014 Judicial Profile by Witold Tymowski Rt. Hon. Beverley McLachlin, P.C. Chief Justice of Canada here is little in the early life of Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin that would foreshadow her rise to the highest judicial office in Canada. After all, she was not raised in a large cosmopolitan center, but on a modest Tranch on the outskirts of Pincher Creek, Alberta, a small town in the lee of Canada’s beautiful Rocky Mountains. Her parents, Eleanora Kruschell and Ernest Gietz, did not come from wealth and privilege. They were hard- working ranchers who also took care of a nearby sawmill. Chief Justice McLachlin readily admits that growing up, she had no professional female role models. And so, becoming a lawyer, let alone a judge, was never part of her early career plans. Indeed, the expectation at the time was that women would marry and remain within the home. Girls might aspire to teaching, nursing, or secretarial work, but usually only for a short time before they married. Her childhood, nonetheless, had a distinct influence on her eventual career path. Chief Justice McLachlin proudly refers to herself as a farm girl and has often spoken of a deep affection for Pincher Creek. A Robert McInnes painting depicting a serene pastoral scene, appropriately entitled Pincher Creek, occupies a prominent place in her Supreme Court office and offers a reminder of her humble beginnings. That Chief Justice McLachlin maintains a deep connec- tion with her birthplace is hardly surprising. Despite its geographical remoteness, it nurtured its youth with a It grounded her with a common-sense practicality and culture centered on literacy, hard work, and self-reli- the importance of doing your honest best at whatever ance.
    [Show full text]
  • A Rare View Into 1980S Top Court
    A rare view into 1980s top court New book reveals frustrations, divisions among the judges on the Supreme Court By KIRK MAKIN JUSTICE REPORTER Thursday, December 4, 2003- Page A11 An unprecedented trove of memos by Supreme Court of Canada judges in the late 1980s reveals a highly pressured environment in which the court's first female judge threatened to quit while another judge was forced out after plunging into a state of depression. The internal memos -- quoted in a new book about former chief justice Brian Dickson -- provide a rare view into the inner workings of the country's top court, which showed itself to be badly divided at the time. The book portrays a weary bench, buried under a growing pile of complex cases and desperately worried about its eroding credibility. One faction complained bitterly about their colleagues' dithering and failure to come to grips with their responsibilities, according to memos seen for the first time by the authors of Brian Dickson: A Judge's Journey. The authors -- Mr. Justice Robert Sharpe of the Ontario Court of Appeal and University of Toronto law professor Kent Roach -- also interviewed many former judges and ex-clerks privy to the inner workings of the court at arguably the lowest point in its history. "The court was struggling with very difficult issues under very difficult circumstances at the time," Prof. Roach said yesterday. "It was a court that had an incredible amount on its plate and, in retrospect, we were well served by that court." The chief agitators were Mr. Justice Antonio Lamer and Madam Justice Bertha Wilson.
    [Show full text]
  • 209E7a36e95cfc54395aebf73c1
    \\server05\productn\G\GHS\5-1\GHS103.txt unknown Seq: 1 17-MAY-07 7:54 Where Do Universal Human Rights Begin? The following talk was given by George Critchlow on April 25, 2006 at Temple Beth Shalom in Spokane, Washington in honor of Yom Hashoah, the annual remembrance of the Holocaust. Critchlow, an associate pro- fessor at Gonzaga University School of Law and a founder and former director of the Gonzaga Institute for Action Against Hate, was selected by the congregation to represent the “righteous gentile.” Professor Critchlow would like to acknowledge the helpful ideas and background information presented at the Amnesty International USA Lawyers’ Conference at the University of Washington School of Law on February 17-18, 2006. In particular, he was inspired by John Shattuck’s presentation titled “The Legacy of Nuremberg: Confronting Genocide and Terrorism Through the Rule of Law.” I have enormous respect for Temple Beth Shalom, what it stands for, its congregation, and those individuals whom I have come to know and count as friends. I am deeply honored and privileged to be invited to speak to you on this Day of Remembrance–especially in light of the occasion to recognize the 60 years that have now passed since the establishment of a new rule of law and accountability regarding war crimes and crimes against humanity at the Nuremberg Military Tribunal in 1946. I have a poster hanging in my office that frequently catches my eye and reminds me to connect my heart with my head. It is a picture of a small child of uncertain ethnicity, running happily, arms out, into the smiling face and open arms of his mother.
    [Show full text]
  • An Unlikely Maverick
    CANADIAN MAVERICK: THE LIFE AND TIMES OF IVAN C. RAND 795 “THE MAVERICK CONSTITUTION” — A REVIEW OF CANADIAN MAVERICK: THE LIFE AND TIMES OF IVAN C. RAND, WILLIAM KAPLAN (TORONTO: UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO PRESS FOR THE OSGOODE SOCIETY FOR CANADIAN LEGAL HISTORY, 2009) When a man has risen to great intellectual or moral eminence; the process by which his mind was formed is one of the most instructive circumstances which can be unveiled to mankind. It displays to their view the means of acquiring excellence, and suggests the most persuasive motive to employ them. When, however, we are merely told that a man went to such a school on such a day, and such a college on another, our curiosity may be somewhat gratified, but we have received no lesson. We know not the discipline to which his own will, and the recommendation of his teachers subjected him. James Mill1 While there is today a body of Canadian constitutional jurisprudence that attracts attention throughout the common law world, one may not have foreseen its development in 1949 — the year in which appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (Privy Council) were abolished and the Supreme Court of Canada became a court of last resort. With the exception of some early decisions regarding the division of powers under the British North America Act, 1867,2 one would be hard-pressed to characterize the Supreme Court’s record in the mid-twentieth century as either groundbreaking or original.3 Once the Privy Council asserted its interpretive dominance over the B.N.A.
    [Show full text]
  • A Decade of Adjustment 1950-1962
    8 A Decade of Adjustment 1950-1962 When the newly paramount Supreme Court of Canada met for the first timeearlyin 1950,nothing marked theoccasionasspecial. ltwastypicalof much of the institution's history and reflective of its continuing subsidiary status that the event would be allowed to pass without formal recogni- tion. Chief Justice Rinfret had hoped to draw public attention to the Court'snew position throughanotherformalopeningofthebuilding, ora reception, or a dinner. But the government claimed that it could find no funds to cover the expenses; after discussing the matter, the cabinet decided not to ask Parliament for the money because it might give rise to a controversial debate over the Court. Justice Kerwin reported, 'They [the cabinet ministers] decided that they could not ask fora vote in Parliament in theestimates tocoversuchexpensesas they wereafraid that that would give rise to many difficulties, and possibly some unpleasantness." The considerable attention paid to the Supreme Court over the previous few years and the changes in its structure had opened broader debate on aspects of the Court than the federal government was willing to tolerate. The government accordingly avoided making the Court a subject of special attention, even on theimportant occasion of itsindependence. As a result, the Court reverted to a less prominent position in Ottawa, and the status quo ante was confirmed. But the desire to avoid debate about the Court discouraged the possibility of change (and potentially of improvement). The St Laurent and Diefenbaker appointments during the first decade A Decade of Adjustment 197 following termination of appeals showed no apparent recognition of the Court’s new status.
    [Show full text]