DOCSLIB.ORG

Me Marie-Claire Belleau

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Me Marie-Claire Belleau Marie-Claire Belleau Marie-Claire Belleau est professeure titulaire à la Faculté de droit de l’Université Laval. Elle enseigne également dans les programmes de 2ème cycle de l’Académie européenne de théorie du droit en Belgique et de l’Institut international de sociologie juridique en Espagne. Elle détient un doctorat et une maîtrise de Harvard Law School ainsi qu’un D.E.A. de l’Université de Paris II. Elle a travaillé auprès des honorables juges Julien Chouinard, Jean Beetz et Claire L’Heureux- Dubé comme auxiliaire juridique à la Cour suprême du Canada. Elle est membre de l’Ordre du Barreau du Québec depuis 1986. Ses recherches portent sur la critique identitaire, la théorie du droit, la justice participative dont la médiation, le pouvoir judiciaire, les dissidences sur les motifs et sur les résultats et l’histoire de la pensée juridique. Pour la rejoindre : Marie-Claire Belleau Faculté de droit Pavillon Charles-De Koninck, local 3121 1030 avenue des Sciences-Humaines Université Laval Québec, (Québec) Canada, G1V 0A6 Téléphone : (418) 656-2131 poste 3449 (418) 653-4218 Télécopieur: (418) 656-7230 Courriel: [email protected] Short Biography Professor Lorne Sossin, B.A. (McGill), M.A. (Exeter), Ph.D. (Toronto), LL.B. (Osgoode), LL.M., J.S.D (Columbia), of the Bar of Ontario Lorne Sossin is a Professor with the Faculty of Law at the University of Toronto, where he teaches courses in administrative and constitutional law, the regulation of professions, civil litigation, public policy and the judicial process. He is a former Associate Dean of the Faculty (2004-2007) and is the inaugural Director of the Centre for the Legal Profession at the Faculty of Law, University of Toronto. Lorne Sossin was a law clerk to former Chief Justice Antonio Lamer of the Supreme Court of Canada, a former Associate in Law at Columbia Law School and a former litigation lawyer with the firm of Borden & Elliot (now Borden Ladner Gervais). Prior to joining U. of T. in 2002, he was a faculty member at Osgoode Hall Law School. Professor Sossin holds doctorates from the University of Toronto in Political Science and from Columbia University in Law. He has published numerous books, journal articles, reviews and essays. Professor Sossin's recent publications include Parliamentary Democracy in Crisis (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2009) (co-edited with Peter Russell); Administrative Law in Context (Toronto: Emond Montgomery, 2008) (co-edited with Colleen Flood) Access to Care, Access to Justice: The Legal Debate over Private Health Insurance in Canada (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2005) (co-edited with Colleen Flood & Kent Roach), Dilemmas of Solidarity: Rethinking Redistribution in the Canadian Federation (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2006) (co-edited with Sujit Choudhry and Jean-Francois Gaudreault-Desbiens), and Civil Procedure (Toronto: Irwin, forthcoming) (with Janet Walker). His current research projects concern bureaucratic independence, regulatory and tribunal reform, reform of court governance, and the relationship between aboriginal self-government and administrative law. Professor Sossin served as Research Director for the Law Society of Upper Canada’s Task Force on the Independence of the Bar and has written papers for the Gomery Inquiry, the Ipperwash Inquiry and the Goudge Inquiry. He also serves on the Boards of the Law Foundation of Ontario, Pro Bono Law Ontario, the Ontario Justice Education Network, the National Judicial Institute and is a Vice Chair of the Ontario Health Professions Appeal and Review Board. On October 1, 2008, Professor Sossin assumed the role of Interim Integrity Commissioner for the City of Toronto. .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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]
  • The Supreme Court of Canada and the Judicial Role: an Historical Institutionalist Account
    THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA AND THE JUDICIAL ROLE: AN HISTORICAL INSTITUTIONALIST ACCOUNT by EMMETT MACFARLANE A thesis submitted to the Department of Political Studies in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Queen’s University Kingston, Ontario, Canada November, 2009 Copyright © Emmett Macfarlane, 2009 i Abstract This dissertation describes and analyzes the work of the Supreme Court of Canada, emphasizing its internal environment and processes, while situating the institution in its broader governmental and societal context. In addition, it offers an assessment of the behavioural and rational choice models of judicial decision making, which tend to portray judges as primarily motivated by their ideologically-based policy preferences. The dissertation adopts a historical institutionalist approach to demonstrate that judicial decision making is far more complex than is depicted by the dominant approaches within the political science literature. Drawing extensively on 28 research interviews with current and former justices, former law clerks and other staff members, the analysis traces the development of the Court into a full-fledged policy-making institution, particularly under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This analysis presents new empirical evidence regarding not only the various stages of the Court’s decision-making process but the justices’ views on a host of considerations ranging from questions of collegiality (how the justices should work together) to their involvement in controversial and complex social policy matters and their relationship with the other branches of government. These insights are important because they increase our understanding of how the Court operates as one of the country’s more important policy-making institutions.
    [Show full text]
  • Article De La Revue Juridique Thémis
    ARTICLE DE LA REVUE JURIDIQUE THÉMIS On peut se procurer ce numéro de la Revue juridique Thémis à l’adresse suivante : Les Éditions Thémis Faculté de droit, Université de Montréal C.P. 6128, Succ. Centre-Ville Montréal, Québec H3C 3J7 Téléphone : (514)343-6627 Télécopieur : (514)343-6779 Courriel : [email protected] © Éditions Thémis inc. Toute reproduction ou distribution interdite disponible à : www.themis.umontreal.ca Untitled 5/17/05 2:27 PM La Revue juridique Thémis / volume 28 - numéros 2 et 3 Jean Beetz as Judge and Colleague Hon. Gerald Le Dain, C.C., Q.C., LL.D.[1] I attempted to sum up my general impressions of Jean Beetz as a judge and a person in the necessarily brief tribute I was invited to prepare for the memorial ceremony in the Supreme Court of Canada on October 16, 1991. I take the liberty of quoting that tribute here because it serves as a convenient point of departure for the further things I propose to say about Jean Beetz as a judge and a colleague, with reference to his participation in some important constitutional cases. Its quotation here has perhaps the further merit of disclosing at the outset that, in addition to having great respect and admiration for Jean Beetz as a jurist, I was very fond of him as a person, although I do not think that has coloured my appreciation of his qualities as a judge and a colleague. On that occasion I said: As a judge Jean Beetz displayed not only an exceptionally powerful and penetrating intellect but also wisdom and intellectual integrity, qualities of judgment and character which do not invariably accompany superior intelligence.
    [Show full text]
  • The Constitutional Legacy of Chief Justice Brian Dickson
    Osgoode Hall Law Journal Volume 38 Issue 1 Volume 38, Number 1 (Spring 2000) Article 5 1-1-2000 The Constitutional Legacy of Chief Justice Brian Dickson Robert J. Sharpe Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/ohlj Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, and the Courts Commons Article This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License. Citation Information Sharpe, Robert J.. "The Constitutional Legacy of Chief Justice Brian Dickson." Osgoode Hall Law Journal 38.1 (2000) : 189-219. https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/ohlj/vol38/iss1/5 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 Osgoode Hall Law Journal by an authorized editor of Osgoode Digital Commons. The Constitutional Legacy of Chief Justice Brian Dickson Abstract Chief Justice Brian Dickson played a central role in the elaboration of the fundamental values of the Canadian Constitution. He took a balanced approach to federalism, favouring neither federal nor provincial claims and inviting cooperation through overlapping jurisdiction. Dickson transformed the rule of law from a background value to an operative constitutional principle. His judgments on the rights of minorities reflect a emarkabler empathy for the plight of the disadvantaged. Democracy informed all aspects of his constitutional thinking. Dickson rejected the contention that judicial review is anti- democratic, and his constitutional legacy reflects a sustained effort to harmonize all four fundament constitutional values. Keywords Dickson, R. G. Brian; Canada. Supreme Court; Constitutional law; Canada Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License.
    [Show full text]
  • Equal Autonomy in Canadian Federalism: the Continuing Search for Balance in the Interpretation of the Division of Powers
    The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference Volume 54 (2011) Article 20 Equal Autonomy in Canadian Federalism: The Continuing Search for Balance in the Interpretation of the Division of Powers Bruce Ryder Osgoode Hall Law School of York University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/sclr This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License. Citation Information Ryder, Bruce. "Equal Autonomy in Canadian Federalism: The onC tinuing Search for Balance in the Interpretation of the Division of Powers." The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference 54. (2011). https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/sclr/vol54/iss1/20 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. Equal Autonomy in Canadian Federalism: The Continuing Search for Balance in the Interpretation of the Division of Powers Bruce Ryder∗ I. INTRODUCTION During most of the past decade, the justices of the Supreme Court of Canada have achieved and maintained a remarkable degree of consensus around their approach to the interpretation of the division of legislative powers in the Constitution Act, 1867.1 Since Beverley McLachlin’s appointment as Chief Justice in January 2000, the Court has been unanimous in its disposition of division of powers issues in 25 rulings or reference opinions.2 The Court was divided on the disposition of a division of powers issue in only one case between 2000 and 2008.3 ∗ Associate Professor and Assistant Dean First Year, Osgoode Hall Law School, York University.
    [Show full text]
  • The Constitutional Prism of Louis-Philippe Pigeon and Jean Beetz William E
    Document generated on 09/26/2021 3:50 p.m. Les Cahiers de droit The Constitutional Prism of Louis-Philippe Pigeon and Jean Beetz William E. Conklin Volume 30, Number 1, 1989 Article abstract After introducing the concept of an "image of a constitution", Mr Conklin URI: https://id.erudit.org/iderudit/042938ar examines the federalism writings and judgments of Justices Pigeon and Beetz DOI: https://doi.org/10.7202/042938ar with a view to identifying the bounderies of their respective concepts of a constitution. He argues that their writings presuppose coherent answers to See table of contents such boundaries as the role of a text as the primary source of law, the posited character of rules, rules as the starting point of constitutional analysis, the scientistic role of a lawyer, and a horizontal / vertical spectrum of posited Publisher(s) rules. Mr. Conklin claims that their understanding of law collapses into a more primordial image of law whose boundaries we have for too long left Faculté de droit de l’Université Laval unexamined. ISSN 0007-974X (print) 1918-8218 (digital) Explore this journal Cite this article Conklin, W. E. (1989). The Constitutional Prism of Louis-Philippe Pigeon and Jean Beetz. Les Cahiers de droit, 30(1), 113–136. https://doi.org/10.7202/042938ar Tous droits réservés © Faculté de droit de l’Université Laval, 1989 This document is protected by copyright law. Use of the services of Érudit (including reproduction) is subject to its terms and conditions, which can be viewed online. https://apropos.erudit.org/en/users/policy-on-use/ This article is disseminated and preserved by Érudit.
    [Show full text]
  • Mélanges Jean Beetz
    Dalhousie Law Journal Volume 19 Issue 2 Article 8 10-1-1996 Mélanges Jean Beetz Teresa Scassa Dalhousie University Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.schulichlaw.dal.ca/dlj Part of the Constitutional Law Commons Recommended Citation Teresa Scassa, "Mélanges Jean Beetz" (1996) 19:2 Dal LJ 437. This Book Review is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Schulich Law Scholars. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dalhousie Law Journal by an authorized editor of Schulich Law Scholars. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Critical Notice Teresa Scassa* Review of M61anges Jean Beetz, J.-L. Baudouin et al., eds., (Montreal: Les Editions Themis, 1996) Melanges JeanBeetz is a collection of essays honouring the late Supreme Court of Canadajudge who died in 1991 after a lengthy battle with illness. The timing of the publication of the book, some five years after his death, places the work within what is perhaps a fitting social and political context. The constitutional crises that have plagued this country continue in what seems to be a period of heightened alienation between Quebec and the rest of Canada. An exploration of the contribution of Justice Beetz to the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court of Canada may be of assistance in the exploration of some of the profound differences and misunder- standings which exist between common law Canada and civil law Quebec. This collection of essays can be approached in at least two ways. The book is, by design, a tribute to a late Justice of the Supreme Court.
    [Show full text]
  • Jean Beetz MG 31, E 123 Instrument De Recherche No
    Jean Beetz MG 31, E 123 Instrument de recherche no. 2097/Finding Aid No. 2097 Préparé par Lucie Paquet Prepared by Lucie Paquet en 1996 et 1998 in 1996 and 1998 iii TABLE DES MATIÈRES / TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION -iii- LE FONDS JEAN BEETZ / JEAN BEETZ`S FONDS Inventaire général/General Inventory -iv- DESCRIPTION DU FONDS / DESCRIPTION OF THE FONDS Carrière professionnelle / Professional Career, 1960-1991 1 Université de Montréal et Cour d’Appel du Québec 1 Cour suprême du Canada / Supreme Court of Canada 1 Clarkson, Tétrault (McCarthy, Tétrault) 3 Vie personnelle / Personal Life, 1803-1995 4 Documents personnels / Personal Documents 4 Familles Beetz et Cousineau / Beetz and Cousineau Families 6 Honneurs / Honours, 1962-1992 8 Articles et monographies / Articles and Monographs, 1854-1990 9 Liste des documents informatiques/Electronic Records List 12 iv INTRODUCTION Les documents du juge Jean Beetz constituent une excellente source d’information sur l’histoire judiciaire canadienne du XXe siècle. Ils traitent de sa carrière professionnelle et personnelle à titre d’étudiant, d’avocat, de professeur et de juge. Par la richesse de l’information, ce fonds d’archives apporte une contribution importante à notre mémoire collective. Le présent inventaire reflète cette documentation unique. Nous tenons à remercier Nicole Blain pour sa participation au traitement du fonds d’archives. Nous avons divisé le fonds d’archives en 4 séries. Elles correspondent aux étapes de la carrière et des activités personnelles de Jean Beetz à partir de ses études jusqu’à ses activités à la Cour suprême du Canada. L’inventaire regroupe intellectuellement les volumes et les dossiers de différentes dimensions et de différents supports.
    [Show full text]
  • Judicial Disagreement on the Supreme Court of Canada
    JUDICIAL DISAGREEMENT ON THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA BONNIE ANDROKOVICH-FARRIES Bachelor of Arts, University of Lethbridge, 2001 A Thesis Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies Of the University of Lethbridge In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree MASTER OF ARTS Political Science University of Lethbridge LETHBRIDGE, ALBERTA, CANADA © Bonnie Androkovich-Farries, 2004 / dedicate this thesis to my husband, Greg; whose unconditional support kept me sane and words of encouragement brought me bach from the abyss. How very lucky I am. iii Abstract: This paper will attempt to explore the history and function of judicial disagreement behaviour using information from both the Canadian Supreme Court and the US Supreme Court. The evolution of national high court decision making, highlights the changing role of courts within the political and public spheres, as well as the increasing authority courts have over policy. This changing role reinforces the need to study the role of courts on law. I will use minority opinions from the Laskin and Dickson courts to study what disagreement reveals about the decision making process. Judicial disagreement has largely been summed up into two deficient stereotypes: the dissent as "serious" disagreement and the separate concurrence as inferior disagreement to the dissent. I will dispel this fallacy by introducing the five categories created to describe a new way of thinking about judicial disagreement and to shatter the old stereotypes. iv Acknowledgements: This thesis could not have been completed without the tremendous support and knowledge of Dr. Peter McCormick. Thank you for trusting me with your idea and for being my most valuable resource.
    [Show full text]
  • Book Review of Barry Strayer Canada's Constitutional Revolution
    Book Review of Barry Strayer Canada’s Constitutional Revolution (Edmonton: University of Alberta Press, 2013) Sarah Burningham* Th e story of the patriation of Canada’s constitution is a familiar one. Its charac- ters and plot are well-known: the charismatic Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, determined to entrench constitutional protection of language rights; the ac- rimonious battle between the federal and provincial governments; the federal attempt to patriate the constitution unilaterally; the late-night drafting of the “Kitchen Accord”, which, in Québec, has become known as the “Night of the Long Knives”. Th e story has been the subject of numerous books, academic articles, documentaries, and other commentary.1 One might be forgiven for thinking that nothing new can be said on the matter. Nevertheless, Barry L Strayer manages to do just that in his new book Canada’s Constitutional Reform. Strayer’s book recounts the story of patriation through the lens of his role as a senior federal offi cial. By providing an “insider look” at the events leading up to patriation (such as his take on the controversial Kirby Memorandum, a confi dential document which outlined the federal government’s action plan for unilateral patriation if negotiations with the provinces failed), Strayer of- fers compelling insight into the federal government’s perspectives and mo- * LL.B. (University of Saskatchewan); B.C.L. (University of Oxford); PhD Candidate (University of Ottawa). I would like to thank Professor Dwight Newman for his support, including reading a
    [Show full text]
  • Article De La Revue Juridique Thémis
    ARTICLE DE LA REVUE JURIDIQUE THÉMIS On peut se procurer ce numéro de la Revue juridique Thémis à l’adresse suivante : Les Éditions Thémis Faculté de droit, Université de Montréal C.P. 6128, Succ. Centre-Ville Montréal, Québec H3C 3J7 Téléphone : (514)343-6627 Télécopieur : (514)343-6779 Courriel : [email protected] © Éditions Thémis inc. Toute reproduction ou distribution interdite disponible à : www.themis.umontreal.ca Untitled 5/18/05 4:51 PM La Revue juridique Thémis / volume 28 - numéros 2 et 3 Justice Jean Beetz „ A Rich and Enduring Legacy in Canadian Constitutional Scholarship and Jurisprudence James C. MacPherson[1] INTRODUCTION!763 JUSTICE BEETZ AND CANADIAN FEDERALISM!764 CONCLUSION!770 I had the privilege of knowing Justice Jean Beetz in two contexts. My first contact with him was in the early 1980s when I was Director of Constitutional Law for the Government of Saskatchewan and came to Ottawa several times a year to argue constitutional cases before the Supreme Court of Canada. Although Justice Beetz was a lifelong student of, and acknowledged expert in, Canadian constitutional law, he did not intervene often or vigorously in the presentation of a case. He was not, however, entirely silent. Usually, towards the end of counsel's presentation, Justice Beetz would ask with great courtesy several succinct and, I always thought, penetrating questions. The distinctive features of his questions were how scholarly and how deeply rooted in Canadian political and constitutional history they were. After I went to work as Executive Legal Officer at the Supreme Court of Canada in the mid-1980s I came to know Justice Beetz quite well indeed, partly because we shared a great passion for Canadian constitutional history and law and enjoyed discussing them together.
    [Show full text]
  • Canadian Federalism, the Privy Council and the Supreme Court: Reflections on the Debate About Canadian Federalism Wade Wright [email protected]
    Western University Scholarship@Western Law Publications Law School 2005 Canadian Federalism, the Privy Council and the Supreme Court: Reflections on the Debate About Canadian Federalism Wade Wright [email protected] Peter Hogg Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/lawpub Part of the Law Commons Citation of this paper: “Canadian Federalism, the Privy Council and the Supreme Court: Reflections on the Debate About Canadian Federalism” (2005) 38(2) U.B.C. Law Rev. 329-352 (with Peter W. Hogg). CANADIAN FEDERALISM, THE PRIVY COUNCIL AND THE SUPREME COURT: REFLECTIONS ON THE DEBATE ABOUT CANADIAN FEDERALISM PETER W. HOGG, Q.C. & WADE K. WRIGHT' 1. SCOPE OF THE PAPER In preparation for our role in this conference, we revisited two articles about Canadian federalism that were published by Ken Lysyk in 1979, when he was Dean of the Faculty of Law at the University of British Columbia. The first article is entitled "Constitutional Reform and the Introductory Clause of Section 91".' In that article, Lysyk argues that much of the controversy about the introductory clause of section 91 of the Constitution Act, 1867 (originally the British North America Act)2 is "attributable to failure to pay due regard to the text of the [Act] itself" and "to a mis-reading of a number of important decisions of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council."3 The second article is entitled "Reshaping Canadian Federalism".4 In that article, Lysyk shares his thoughts on what degree of centralization is appropriate in the Canadian context, and suggests, for a number of reasons, that a highly centralized federal system is inappropriate for Canada.
    [Show full text]