DOCSLIB.ORG

Doctrine of Paramountcy,Suspended Declaration,Division of Powers

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Doctrine of Paramountcy,Suspended Declaration,Division of Powers Treaty Rights ‘Treaty rights’ are the rights that Aboriginal peoples have as a result of agreements they entered into with the French, British and Canadian governments, both prior to and after Confederation. These agreements include both the historic treaties, the last of which were entered into in the 1920s, and modern land claims treaties, dating from the mid-1970s. In Canadian law, these treaties are unique: they are not international agreements, nor are they mere contracts. Since 17 April 1982, the rights of the Aboriginal peoples contained in these treaties have been constitutionally protected in the same way as existing Aboriginal rights. Specific treaty rights depend on the actual terms of each treaty, including any oral terms that were agreed upon but were not included in the written document. Examples of treaty rights of the Aboriginal peoples are rights to hunt and fish, and to receive reserve lands, agricultural implements, annuity payments, education, and other benefits. In exchange, the European and Canadian governments who signed the treaties generally obtained peace and friendship with the Aboriginal parties, and in some cases the right to open up some lands for European settlement. The Supreme Court of Canada has established the following principles for interpreting the historic treaties (see R. v. Simon, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 387; R. v. Badger, [1996] 1 S.C.R. 771; and R. v. Marshall, [1999] 3 S.C.R. 456). The treaties have to be interpreted in a liberal and generous manner, taking into account the historical and cultural context. They also have to be interpreted as the Aboriginal parties would have understood them, and any ambiguities are to be resolved in their favour. Finally, the honour of the Crown is at stake, so any appearance of sharp dealing has to be avoided in interpreting the treaties. Trade and Commerce One of the heads of power allocated to the federal government in the Constitution Act, 1867, s. 91(2). Comparable to the federal power in the United States Constitution to “regulate commerce with Foreign nations, and among the several States,” the power to regulate trade and commerce was considered one of the broadest powers available to the federal government to regulate economic activity. It was out of concern that the federal power over trade and commerce would render meaningless provincial authority over property and civil rights, that Courts narrowed the scope of this federal power. In an early decision of theJudicial Committee of the Privy Council (1881), the federal power was limited to the regulation of foreign trade, interprovincial trade and, perhaps, the “general regulation of trade affecting the whole dominion.” But federal power did not extend to the regulation of the contracts of a particular business or trade as such regulation fell exclusively under provincial control. In subsequent decisions, courts would not recognize the federal power to regulate trade generally. The modern Supreme Court of Canada has sanctioned use of this branch of the federal power. The Court upheld a federal law which provides a civil cause of action for breach of the federal Combines Investigation Act. It has been argued by at least one scholar in Quebec that such an interpretation of the federal power by the Supreme Court amounts to a radical reinterpretation and expansion of federal power. See Smith (1963); Swinton (1990). Sources: McGilp. Ian (1992) The Distinct Society Clause and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (North York: York University Centre for Public Law and Policy). Smith, Alexander (1963) The Commerce Power in Canada and the United States (Toronto: Butterworths). Smith, Lynn (1989) “Could the Meech Lake Accord Affect the Protection of Equality Rights for Women and Minorities in Canada?” Constitutional Forum 1(2): 12, 17-20. Swinton, Katherine (1990) The Supreme Court and Canadian Federalism: The Laskin-Dickson Years(Toronto: Carswell). Trudeau, Pierre Elliot (1988), “Say Goodbye to the Dream of One Canada” in Roger Gibbins, Howard Palmer, Brian Rusted and David Taras, eds., Meech Lake and Canada: Perspectives From the West (Edmonton: Academic Printing and Publishing). Double Aspect The Double Aspect doctrine is a tool of constitutional interpretation used when both levels of government have an equally valid constitutional right to legislate on a specific issue or matter. Double Aspect represents the modern notion of co-operative federalism, which abandons the out-dated idea that every subject matter falls under the exclusive control of either the federal or provincial government. Double Aspect fosters respect for the decisions of the elected legislatures of both levels of government. As the name indicates, the double aspect doctrine acknowledges that both Parliament and the provincial legislatures can pass valid legislation relating to the same subject depending on the aspect from which the subject is being approached. The best example of this doctrine at work is inMultiple Access v McCutcheon, a 1982 case that dealt with insider trading in Ontario. Both levels of government passed legislation to combat insider trading: the Federal government passed legislation dealing with federally regulated corporations, while Ontario’s legislation focussed on the actual acts of insider trading. The Provinces could claim the power to do this through their constitutional powers over property and civil rights, which includes securities trading such as what was occurring in this case. The Federal government had an equally strong jurisdictional claim through its ability to regulate for the peace, order and good government of Canada. The Supreme Court ruled that both pieces of legislation were valid because they dealt with different aspects of the same problem that fell within the constitutional powers of the enacting legislature. Prominent Double Aspect Cases: Multiple Access v McCutcheon Taxation Power Canada’s constitution divides the power to tax between Parliament and the provincial legislatures. Parliament has power to tax “by any Mode or System of Taxation.” This power includes ‘indirect taxation’. The legislatures, by contrast, are limited to “Direct Taxation within the Province”(Constitution Act, 1867, s. 91(3), 92(2)). Indirect taxes are imposed in one area of the economy with the expectation that the taxpayer will pass it on to another sector. For example, taxes imposed on manufacturing are the classic instance of indirect taxes. The legislature expects that the manufacturer will pass the tax on to the consumer by building it into the cost of the good sold. Direct taxation is expected to be paid by the taxpayer on whom it is first imposed; it is not expected to be passed on. Accordingly, direct taxation is thought to be more visible to the ultimate taxpayer and, politically, harder to get enacted. This was the nineteenth century economic theory behind the division of taxing powers (J.S. Mill, Principles of Political Economy, Bk. V, 3). The Constitution requires that Bills imposing taxes must originate in the House of Commons and be preceded by a royal recommendation. This is a means of insuring that the elected chamber and a Cabinet Minister will take primary responsibility for taxation. The Constitution also prohibits Parliament and the legislatures from using their powers to tax lands or property belonging to each other (Constitution Act, 1867, secs. 53(4), 125). Parliament and the legislatures may also raise money by charging fees for their services, and by imposing costs incidental to regulation, such as licencing fees. These charges are not taxation. So they are not restrained by the constitutional requirements to originate in the House of Commons, be preceded by a royal recommendation, and, in the case of the provincial legislatures, be “direct”. To be considered non-tax service charges or regulatory measures, levies must pursue a proper regulatory purpose that is anchored in some grant of constitutional power to the enacting legislative body, other than the taxing powers. The difference between taxes and these other charges is that taxes may be pure revenue raising measures. Regulatory charges, by contrast, usually are imposed to defray the expenses of the regulatory scheme, as, for example, a marketing board imposing the costs of its operation on the regulated producers or a municipality charging for snow removal. Unlike taxes, regulatory charges that are not taxes may originate in the Senate, do not require a royal recommendation, and, if imposed by a provincial legislature, may be indirect. Tax Points ‘Tax points’ came to prominence with the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act of 1961 (see the currentFederal- Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-8.) when the federal and provincial governments converted from the tax rental arrangements (which originated during World War II) to separate federal and provincial personal and corporate income taxes (PIT and CIT). The federal government reduced its personal and corporate incomes taxes to make room for the newly established provincial taxes. The federal PIT abatement started at sixteen percent of the Basic Federal Tax (BFT) payable. PIT tax points are measured as a percentage of BFT and as of 2001, provincial personal income tax rates have been expressed as a percentage of the BFT. The federal CIT abatement was initially 9 percent of corporate taxable income (not tax payable, as with the PIT). With the federal abatement, the provinces introduced their own taxes at offsetting or higher rates. ‘Tax points’ took on a renewed relevance with the Federal- Provincial Fiscal Arrangements of 1977, when the federal transfer programs in support of health-care and post-secondary education were converted from cost sharing to a block transfer under the new Established Program Financing (EPF) transfer. EPF funding to the provinces was a combination of cash transfers and tax point transfers that would provide each province the same per capita support for health care and post secondary education. The value of the tax abatement, which made room for increased provincial taxes, varied by province and the cash payment made up the difference to the uniform per capita amount.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Judicial Review of the Division of Powers in the Supreme Court of Canada 2010 Canliidocs 474 Wade K
    The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference Volume 51 (2010) Article 21 Facilitating Intergovernmental Dialogue: Judicial Review of the Division of Powers in the Supreme Court of Canada 2010 CanLIIDocs 474 Wade K. Wright Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/sclr This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License. Citation Information Wright, Wade K.. "Facilitating Intergovernmental Dialogue: Judicial Review of the Division of Powers in the Supreme Court of Canada." The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference 51. (2010). http://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/sclr/vol51/iss1/21 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Osgoode Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in The uS preme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference by an authorized editor of Osgoode Digital Commons. Facilitating Intergovernmental Dialogue: Judicial Review of the Division of Powers in the Supreme Court of Canada 2010 CanLIIDocs 474 Wade K. Wright∗ I. INTRODUCTION A cursory review of any Canadian law review tells the story: the Ca- nadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms1 is “in” and the division of powers is “out”. Since 1982, when the Charter came into force, there has been a vast amount of writing about the Supreme Court of Canada’s Charter decisions. However, its division of powers decisions, once the staple of constitutional law scholars, are now routinely ignored, particu- larly in English Canada.2 This trend has been noted before, with little effect.
    [Show full text]
  • Paramountcy in Penal Legislation
    OCCUPYING THE FIELD : PARAMOUNTCY IN PENAL LEGISLATION BORA LASKIN* Toronto Among the time-honoured doctrines of Canadian constitutional law none has a more disarming simplicity and none is more ques- tion-begging than the last of the four propositions proclaimed by Lord Tomlin in the Fish Canneries case' and repeated on three subsequent occasions by the Privy Council.2 It reads as follows : "There can be a domain in which Provincial and Dominion legisla- tion may overlap, in which case neither legislation will be ultra vires if the field is clear, but if the field is not clear and the two legislations meet the Dominion legislation must prevail."' The issues raised by this pronouncement are concomitants of federal- ism, familiar in the United States and in Australia, and immanent in the constitutions of the new federal states that have come into being since the end of World War Two.4 Three fairly recent decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada, in each of which there were dissents, illustrate that court's ap- preciation ofthose issues as they emerged in provincial and federal penal legislation. The three cases are sufficiently different from one another in their facts and supporting legislation to provide adequate perspective for an examination of the doctrine of the "occupied field"-the paramountcy doctrine, to use an equivalent-as it pertains to penal enactments. *Bora Laskin, Q.C., of the Faculty of Law, University of Toronto. 1 A.-G. for Canada v. A.-G . for British Columbia, [1930] A.C. 111, [19301 1 D.L.R. 194, [192913 W.W.R.
    [Show full text]
  • Product Liability Defense: Preemption in Canada
    Product Liability Defence North and South of the Border: Is there such thing as Canadian pre-emption? By Craig Lockwood, Sonia Bjorkquist and Alexis Beale from Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP and Maura Kathleen Monaghan, Jacob W. Stahl and Christel Y. Tham from Debevoise & Plimpton LLP PRODUCT LIABILITY DEFENCE NORTH AND SOUTH OF THE BORDER Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt llp | Debevoise & Plimpton Table of Contents Introduction 3 An Overview of the U.S. Experience 5 The Canadian Experience 9 Recent Developments 15 Conclusion 19 2 PRODUCT LIABILITY DEFENCE NORTH AND SOUTH OF THE BORDER Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt llp | Debevoise & Plimpton 1 Introduction In Canada, most food products, pharmaceuticals, cosmetic products and medical devices are subject to federal regulation pursuant to the Food and Drugs Act (FDA) and other related legislation.1 Similar to the U.S. regulatory scheme, the Canadian regime is administered and enforced by the federal regulatory authorities – most notably Health Canada – responsible for establishing standards of safety for, and regulating and approving the use of, health-related products sold in Canada. However, U.S. manufacturers who sell regulated products in Canada may be surprised to learn that compliance with the FDA and associated regulatory frameworks has not historically served as a defence to product liability claims. In particular, the Canadian regulatory regime has traditionally operated as a ‘regulatory floor,’ rather than a comprehensive code of conduct. Conversely, applicable regulatory frameworks in the United States may prescribe comprehensive codes of conduct that do not leave the regulated entity with any discretion, potentially creating irreconcilable conflicts between the state and federal governments.
    [Show full text]
  • The Hidden Ally: How the Canadian Supreme Court Has Advanced the Vitality of the Francophone Quebec Community
    The Hidden Ally: How the Canadian Supreme Court Has Advanced the Vitality of the Francophone Québec Community DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Douglas S. Roberts, B.A., J.D., M.A. Graduate Program in French and Italian The Ohio State University 2015 Dissertation Committee: Professor Wynne Wong, Advisor Professor Danielle Marx-Scouras, Advisor Professor Jennifer Willging Copyright by Douglas S. Roberts 2015 Abstract Since the adoption of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982, the Canadian Supreme Court has become a much more powerful and influential player in the Canadian political and social landscape. As such, the Court has struck down certain sections of the Charter of the French Language (Bill 101) as contrary to the Constitution, 1867 and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In Ford v. Québec, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 712, for instance, the Court found unconstitutional that portion of Bill 101 that required commercial signage to be in French only. After the decision was announced, public riots broke out in Montreal. As a result of this decision, one could conclude that the Court has, in fact, resisted Québec‘s attempts to protect and promote its own language and culture. In this dissertation, however, I argue that this perception is not justified, primarily because it fails to recognize how Canadian federalism protects diversity within the Confederation. Contrary to the initial public reaction to the Ford case, my contention is that the Court has, in fact, advanced and protected the vitality of Francophone Québec by developing three fundamental principles.
    [Show full text]
  • The Constitution of Canada and the Conflict of Laws
    Osgoode Hall Law School of York University Osgoode Digital Commons PhD Dissertations Theses and Dissertations 2001 The onsC titution of Canada and the Conflict of Laws Janet Walker Osgoode Hall Law School of York University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/phd Part of the Conflict of Laws Commons, and the Jurisdiction Commons Recommended Citation Walker, Janet, "The onC stitution of Canada and the Conflict of Laws" (2001). PhD Dissertations. 18. http://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/phd/18 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses and Dissertations at Osgoode Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in PhD Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Osgoode Digital Commons. THE CONSTITUTION OF CANADA AND THE CONFLICT OF LAWS Janet Walker A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Worcester College Trinity Term 2001 The Constitution of Canada and the Conflict of Laws Janet Walker, Worcester College Doctor of Philosophy Thesis, Trinity Term 2001 This thesis explains the constitutional foundations for the conflict of laws in Canada. It locates these constitutional foundations in the text of key constitutional documents and in the history and the traditions of the courts in Canada. It compares the features of the Canadian Constitution that provide the foundation for the conflict of laws with comparable features in the constitutions of other federal and regional systems, particularly of the Constitutions of the United States and of Australia. This comparison highlights the distinctive Canadian approach to judicial authority-one that is the product of an asymmetrical system of government in which the source of political authority is the Constitution Act and in which the source of judicial authority is the continuing local tradition of private law adjudication.
    [Show full text]
  • Suspended Declarations of Invalidity
    The Judicial Notwithstanding Clause: Suspended Declarations of Invalidity B R I A N B I R D * ABSTRACT This article considers suspended declarations of invalidity – court orders in Canada that, like use of the notwithstanding clause by legislatures, temporarily give life to unconstitutional laws. Suspended declarations exceed the judicial review powers of Canadian courts, but the unwritten constitutional principle of the rule of law authorizes them where an immediate declaration of invalidity would create lawlessness. The prospect of this scenario yielded the first suspended declaration in Canada, which I consider a legitimate use of the remedy. Since then, however, the legal basis for this remedy has become obscured and, as a consequence, use of the remedy has at times been unprincipled. Suspended declarations can threaten the rule of law if they are misunderstood. In 2015, a court in Quebec upheld legislation in that province allowing physician-assisted death during the period in which the federal crime of assisted suicide remained valid due to a suspended declaration. Where a valid federal law and a valid provincial law conflict, the federal law prevails. Allowing the Quebec law to operate alongside the valid federal law during that period violated the rule of law. Regarding separation of powers, the Canadian Constitution expressly permits legislatures to give life to certain unconstitutional laws via the notwithstanding clause. Courts engage in this kind of activity when they issue suspended declarations. The federal government could have used the notwithstanding clause for physician-assisted death to extend the period of suspended invalidity. There was no need to ask the Supreme Court for the * Brian Bird is the 2019-2020 John and Daria Barry Postdoctoral Research Fellow in the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University.
    [Show full text]
  • The Constitutional Status of Yukon— a Normative Analysis
    Research Article The Constitutional Status of Yukon— A Normative Analysis Pamela Muir* Abstract: Because Yukon is established by an Act of Parliament, is it possible Ottawa could abolish it or alter the government’s powers at will? The question of the legal position of Yukon in the federation is not straightforward. This article considers three pillars supporting the normative constitutional status of Yukon. The fi rst is a review of functionality, which suggests that today Yukon operates essentially like a province. The second pillar is permanence. It is suggested that the structure of public government, the democratic rights of Yukoners, and the rights of Yukon First Nations, together operate to limit Parliament’s power to unilaterally change the Yukon Act without the agreement of the people of Yukon. The fi nal pillar is sovereignty. As a result of devolution and responsible government, it is suggested that the Yukon government’s sphere of power is now protected from unilateral interference by Parliament. While there has been no constitutional amendment, these pillars support an interpretation that the “constitution-in-practice” has been altered. At the same time, the majority of Yukon First Nations have constitutionally protected rights and are now self- governing. This article concludes that the traditional binary view of the federation comprised of provinces and the federal government needs to be reimagined. The normative constitutional framework must embrace a broader vision that accommodates asymmetries in status and authority, acknowledges a permanent and sovereign place for Yukon and the other territories, and makes space for participation by Indigenous peoples in governance of the federation.
    [Show full text]
  • Desgagnés Transport Inc. V. Wärtsilä Canada Inc., 2019 SCC 58 APPEAL HEARD: January 24, 20
    SUPREME COURT OF CANADA CITATION: Desgagnés Transport Inc. v. Wärtsilä APPEAL HEARD: January 24, 2019 Canada Inc., 2019 SCC 58 JUDGMENT RENDERED: November 28, 2019 DOCKET: 37873 BETWEEN: Desgagnés Transport Inc., Desgagnés Transarctik Inc., Navigation Desgagnés Inc., Lloyds Underwriters and Institute of Lloyds Underwriters (ILU) Companies Subscribing to Policy Number B0856 09h0016 and Aim Insurance (Barbados) SCC Appellants and Wärtsilä Canada Inc. and Wärtsilä Nederland B.V. Respondents - and - Attorney General of Ontario and Attorney General of Quebec Interveners CORAM: Wagner C.J. and Abella, Moldaver, Karakatsanis, Gascon, Côté, Brown, Rowe and Martin JJ. JOINT REASONS FOR JUDGMENT: Gascon, Côté and Rowe JJ. (Moldaver, Karakatsanis and (paras. 1 to 107) Martin JJ. concurring) JOINT CONCURRING REASONS: Wagner C.J. and Brown J. (Abella J. concurring) (paras. 108 to 193) NOTE: This document is subject to editorial revision before its reproduction in final form in the Canada Supreme Court Reports. DESGAGNÉS TRANSPORT INC. v. WÄRTSILÄ CANADA INC. Desgagnés Transport Inc., Desgagnés Transarctik Inc., Navigation Desgagnés Inc., Lloyds Underwriters and Institute of Lloyds Underwriters (ILU) Companies Subscribing to Policy Number B0856 09h0016 and Aim Insurance (Barbados) SCC Appellants v. Wärtsilä Canada Inc. and Wärtsilä Nederland B.V. Respondents and Attorney General of Ontario and Attorney General of Quebec Interveners Indexed as: Desgagnés Transport Inc. v. Wärtsilä Canada Inc. 2019 SCC 58 File No.: 37873. 2019: January 24; 2019: November
    [Show full text]
  • Doctrine of Paramountcy,B.C. Premier Vows to Shut Down Northern
    Doctrine of Paramountcy In any country where there are state or provincial governments as well as a central government, there are bound to be occasions where conflicting or contradictory laws are passed by a state or provincial government, on the one hand, and the central government on the other. Each country (or federation) must find a way to resolve or reconcile these contradictory enactments. In Canada, as a result of decisions made by our courts over the years, we have adopted the notion of federal paramountcy to resolve these conflicts. That is, when federal and provincial laws cover the same or similar subject matters, and there is a conflict between those laws, the central law is operative and the provincial law (to the extent of the conflict) is rendered inoperative. In other words, the provincial law remains valid but cannot operate so long as the central or federal law occupies the field. The issue of paramountcy, however, is dependent upon a preliminary determination that both the federal and provincial laws are constitutionally valid under the respective jurisdictions of Parliament and the legislatures under the Constitution Act, 1867. Over the years, different theories have emerged as to when the ‘doctrine of paramountcy’ arises. Some courts and some writers have theorized that paramountcy arises when similar federal and provincial laws merely co-exist. Others have felt that an actual conflict is necessary between federal and provincial laws where obedience to one law requires disobedience to the other before paramountcy arises. Some courts and some writers have made distinctions among three scenarios: first, there is the situation where provincial laws have merely supplemented federal laws; second, there is the case of provincial laws that are duplicative of federal laws; and finally, there are provincial laws that actually conflict with federal laws.
    [Show full text]
  • Court File No
    S.C.C. FILE NO. 38682 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA) IN THE MATTER OF The Constitutional Question Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 68 AND IN THE MATTER OF A Reference by the Lieutenant Governor in Council set out in Order in Council No. 211/18 dated April 25, 2018 concerning the constitutionality of amendments to provisions in the Environmental Management Act, R.S.B.C. 2003, c. 53 regarding the impacts of releases of certain hazardous substances BETWEEN: ATTORNEY GENERAL OF BRITISH COLUMBIA APPELLANT (Party pursuant to s 4 of the Constitutional Questions Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 68) - and - ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA RESPONDENT (Party pursuant to s 4 of the Constitutional Questions Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 68) FACTUM OF THE APPELLANT, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Pursuant to Rule 42 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada) Arvay Finlay LLP Michael J. Sobkin 1512 – 808 Nelson Street 331 Somerset Street West Box 12149, Nelson Square Ottawa ON K2P 0J8 Vancouver BC V6Z 2H2 Tel: 613.282.1712 / Fax: 613.288.2896 Tel: 604.696.9828 / Fax: 1.888.575.3281 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Ottawa Agent for Counsel for the Appellant, [email protected] Attorney General of British Columbia -and- Ministry of Attorney General 6th Floor, 1001 Douglas Street PO Box 9280 Stn Prov Govt Victoria BC V8W 9J7 Tel: 250.952.7644 / Fax: 250.356.0064 Email: [email protected] Joseph J.
    [Show full text]
  • Law 435 Can Constitutional
    LAW 435 CAN CONSTITUTIONAL INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................... 1 THE ELEMENTS OF THE CANADIAN CONSTITUTION ................................................................ 1 THE SOURCES OF THE CANADIAN CONSTITUTION ................................................................... 1 REFERENCE CASES ............................................................................................................................. 1 CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES .............................................................................................................. 1 Reference re Secession of Quebec ......................................................................................................... 1 Reference re Senate Reform .................................................................................................................. 2 CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION ................................................................................................... 2 UNWRITTEN CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES .............................................................................. 2 Reference re Meaning of the Word “Persons” in Section 24 of the British North America Act, 1867 . 2 Edwards v Canada (Attorney General) – Living Tree .......................................................................... 3 Constitutional Interpretation and Original Intent – Justice Ian Binnie ...........................................
    [Show full text]
  • By Iryna Ponomarenko a THESIS SUBMITTED in PARTIAL FULFILLMENT of the REQUIREMENTS for the DEGREE of Master of Laws In
    PROPER PROPORTIONS OF LAW: JUSTIFYING DEMOCRATIC CREDENTIALS OF PROPORTIONALITY ANALYSIS IN CONSTITUTIONAL ADJUDICATION by Iryna Ponomarenko A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF Master of Laws in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE AND POSTDOCTORAL STUDIES (Law) THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Vancouver) October 2013 © Iryna Ponomarenko, 2013 ABSTRACT When scholars speak of proportionality, they most likely speak of the multi- pronged analytical frame for norm-based argumentation — which it certainly is. Indeed, be it the Canadian Oakes test or European “fair balance,” proportionality is deemed to be “the best possible” discursive technique to achieve “a positive partnership” between conflicting constitutional rights and laudable legislative objectives. However, there is more to proportionality than a formulaic framework: as canvassed throughout the thesis, there exist notorious puzzles regarding the concepts and vocabularies involved in the proportionality rhetoric; there is likewise a need to critically analyze the assumptions and presuppositions underlying modern proportionality discourse. Last but not least, the very invocation of proportionality into rights adjudication calls for doctrinal — as well as legal and democratic — justification. From the European Union to Canada, from South Africa to Brazil, constitutional jurisprudence is currently filled with proportionality formulaic parlance, whereas — and this last point is of particular significance — very few Constitutions explicitly speak of proportionality, not to mention the multi-pronged tests. In this thesis, I take a wider view of the matter and propose a new paradigm for bridging the epistemological gap between the constitutional need to reconcile competing private and public interests, on one hand, and invocation of proportionality formula into constitutional jurisprudence, on the other.
    [Show full text]