DOCSLIB.ORG

S.C.C. File No.: 38837 in the SUPREME COURT of CANADA

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
S.C.C. File No.: 38837 in the SUPREME COURT of CANADA S.C.C. File No.: 38837 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL OF QUÉBEC) BETWEEN: CANADIAN ASSOCIATION OF PROVINCIAL COURT JUDGES Appellant (Intervener) - and - CHIEF JUSTICE, SENIOR ASSOCIATE CHIEF JUSTICE, AND ASSOCIATE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF QUÉBEC Respondents (Interveners) - and - ATTORNEY GENERAL OF QUÉBEC Intervener (Appellant) - and - ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIO, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ALBERTA, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF BRITISH COLUMBIA, CONSEIL DE LA MAGISTRATURE DU QUÉBEC, CONFÉRENCE DES JUGES DE LA COUR DU QUÉBEC, ORGANISME D’AUTORÉGLEMENTATION DU COURTAGE IMMOBILIER DU QUÉBEC (OACIQ) Interveners [Style of cause continued on next page] FACTUM OF THE APPELLANT CANADIAN ASSOCIATION OF PROVINCIAL COURT JUDGES POWER LAW POWER LAW Mark C. Power Maxine Vincelette Jennifer A. Klinck Audrey Mayrand 130 Albert Street, #1103 130 Albert Street, #1103 Ottawa, ON K1P 5G4 Ottawa, ON K1P 5G4 Tel: 514-367-0874 Tel: 613-702-5573 Fax: 514-612-8505 Fax: 613-702-5560 E-mail: [email protected] E: [email protected] Counsel for the Appellant, the Canadian Agent for the Appellant, the Canadian Association of Provincial Court Judges Association of Provincial Court Judges AND BETWEEN: CONFÉRENCE DES JUGES DE LA COUR DU QUÉBEC Appellant (Intervener) - and - CHIEF JUSTICE, SENIOR ASSOCIATE CHIEF JUSTICE, AND ASSOCIATE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF QUÉBEC Respondents (Interveners) - and - ATTORNEY GENERAL OF QUÉBEC Intervener (Appellant) - and - ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIO, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ALBERTA, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF BRITISH COLUMBIA, CONSEIL DE LA MAGISTRATURE DU QUÉBEC, CANADIAN ASSOCIATION OF PROVINCIAL COURT JUDGES, ORGANISME D’AUTORÉGLEMENTATION DU COURTAGE IMMOBILIER DU QUÉBEC (OACIQ) Interveners AND BETWEEN: ATTORNEY GENERAL OF QUÉBEC Appellant (Appellant) - and - CHIEF JUSTICE, SENIOR ASSOCIATE CHIEF JUSTICE, AND ASSOCIATE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF QUÉBEC Respondents (Interveners) - and - ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIO, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ALBERTA, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF BRITISH COLUMBIA, CONSEIL DE LA MAGISTRATURE DU QUÉBEC, CANADIAN ASSOCIATION OF PROVINCIAL COURT JUDGES, ORGANISME D’AUTORÉGLEMENTATION DU COURTAGE IMMOBILIER DU QUÉBEC (OACIQ), CONFÉRENCE DES JUGES DE LA COUR DU QUÉBEC Interveners [Style of cause continued on next page] AND BETWEEN: CONSEIL DE LA MAGISTRATURE DU QUÉBEC Appellant (Intervener) - and - ATTORNEY GENERAL OF QUÉBEC Respondent (Appellant) - and - ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIO, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ALBERTA, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF BRITISH COLUMBIA, CANADIAN ASSOCIATION OF PROVINCIAL COURT JUDGES, ORGANISME D’AUTORÉGLEMENTATION DU COURTAGE IMMOBILIER DU QUÉBEC (OACIQ), CONFÉRENCE DES JUGES DE LA COUR DU QUÉBEC, CHIEF JUSTICE, SENIOR ASSOCIATE CHIEF JUSTICE, ASSOCIATE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF QUÉBEC Interveners AND BETWEEN: CHIEF JUSTICE, SENIOR ASSOCIATE CHIEF JUSTICE, AND ASSOCIATE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF QUÉBEC Appellants (Interveners) - and - ATTORNEY GENERAL OF QUÉBEC Respondent (Appellant) - and - ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF BRITISH COLUMBIA, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIO, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ALBERTA, CONSEIL DE LA MAGISTRATURE DU QUÉBEC, CANADIAN ASSOCIATION OF PROVINCIAL COURT JUDGES, ORGANISME D’AUTORÉGLEMENTATION DU COURTAGE IMMOBILIER DU QUÉBEC (OACIQ), CONFÉRENCE DES JUGES DE LA COUR DU QUÉBEC, CHIEF JUSTICE, SENIOR ASSOCIATE CHIEF JUSTICE, ASSOCIATE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF QUÉBEC Interveners ORIGINAL TO: THE REGISTRAR OF THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA 301 Wellington Street Ottawa (Ontario) K1A 0K1 COPIES TO: WILLIAM J. ATKINSON, AD. E., PH. D. GABRIEL POLIQUIN CazaSaikaley LLP 300 des Sommets Ave., Office 412 220 Laurier Avenue West, Office 350 Montreal, QC H3E 2B7 Ottawa, ON K1P 5Z9 Tel: 514 233-2194 Tel: 613 564-8272 Fax: 514 845-6573 Fax: 613 565-2087 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] SEAN GRIFFIN VÉRONIQUE ROY Langlois Lawyers, LLP 1250, René-Lévesque Boul. West, 20th floor Montreal, QC H3B 4W8 Tel: 514 842-7872 (Mr. Griffin) Tel: 514 842-7809 (Ms. Roy) Fax: 514 845-6573 Email: [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for the Respondents, the Chief Agent for the Respondents, the Chief Justice, Senior Associate Chief Justice and Justice, Senior Associate Chief Justice and Associate Chief Justice of the Superior Associate Chief Justice of the Superior Court of Québec Court of Québec JEAN-YVES BERNARD, AD. E. PIERRE LANDRY FRANCIS DEMERS Noel & Associés Bernard, Roy (Justice-Québec) 1 Notre-Dame East St., 8th floor 111 Champlain Road Montreal, QC H2Y 1B6 Gatineau, QC J8X 3R1 Tel: 514 393-2336, ext 51467 / 51456 Tel: 819 503-2178 Fax: 514 873-7074 Fax: 819 771-5397 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] [email protected] DOMINIQUE ROUSSEAU Lavoie, Rousseau (Justice-Québec) 300 Jean-Lesage Boul., Suite 1.03 Québec, QC G1K 8K6 Tel: 418 649-3524, ext 42072 Fax: 418 646-1656 Email: [email protected] ROBERT DESROCHES Direction du droit constitutionnel et autochtone 1200 de l’Église, 2nd floor Québec, QC G1V 4M1 Tel: 418 643-1477, ext 20759 Fax: 418 644-7030 Email: [email protected] Counsel for the Appellant, the Attorney Agent for the Appellant, the Attorney General of Québec General of Québec BERNARD LETARTE CHRISTOPHER RUPAR IAN DEMERS Department of Justice Department of Justice 284 Wellington St., T-6060 50 O’Connor Street, Suite 500 Ottawa, ON K1A 0H8 Ottawa, ON K1A 0H8 Tel: 613 946-2776 Tel: 613 670-6290 Fax: 613 952-6006 Fax: 613 954-1920 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] LINDY ROUILLARD-LABBÉ Department of Justice 200 René-Lévesque Boul. West, East Tower, 5th floor Montreal, QC H2Z 1X4 Tel: 514 283-7179 Fax: 514 283-3856 Email: [email protected] Counsel for the Intervener, the Attorney Agent for the Intervener, the Attorney General of Canada General of Canada KARRIE WOLFE KAREN PERRON GARETH MORLEY Borden Ladner Gervais LLP ZACHARY FROESE British Columbia Minister of Justice 1001 Douglas Street, 6th floor 1300-100 Queen Street P.O. Box 9280, Station Prov. Govt. Ottawa, ON K1P 1J9 Victoria, BC V8W 9J7 Tel: 250 952-7644 (Mr. Morley) Tel: 613 369-4795 Tel: 250 952-7644, ext 7381 (Mr. Froese) Fax: 613 230-8842 Tel: 250 356-6185 (Ms. Wolfe) Email: [email protected] Fax: 250 356-9154 Email: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for the Intervener, the Attorney Agent for the Intervener, the Attorney General of British Columbia General of British Columbia GUY J. PRATTE, AD. E. KAREN PERRON FRANÇOIS GRONDIN Borden Ladner Gervais LLP ANAÏS BUSSIÈRES MCNICOLL Borden Ladner Gervais LLP 1000-900 De La Gauchetière Street West 1300-100 Queen Street Montreal, QC H3B 5H4 Ottawa, ON K1P 1J9 Tel: 514 954-2545 Tel: 613 369-4795 Fax: 514 954-1905 Fax: 613 230-8842 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for the Appellant, the Conférence Agent for the Appellant, the Conférence des juges de la Cour du Québec des juges de la Cour du Québec ME MARC-ANDRÉ G. FABIEN, AD. E. SOPHIE ARSENAULT ME VINCENT CÉRAT LAGANA Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP 800 Square-Victoria, Suite 3700 55 Metcalfe Street, Suite 1300 Montreal, QC H4Z 1E9 Ottawa, ON K1P 6L5 Tel: 514 397-7557 (Mr. Fabien) Tel: 613 236-3882 Tel: 514 394-4520 (Mr. Cérat Lagana) Fax: 613 230-6423 Fax: 514 397-7600 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for the Appellant, the Conseil de la Agent for the Appellant, the Conseil de la magistrature du Québec magistrature du Québec SARAH KRAICER MARIE-FRANCE MAJOR Attorney General of Ontario Supreme Advocacy LLP 720 Bay Street, 4th Floor 100-340 Gilmour Street Toronto, ON M7A 2S9 Ottawa, ON K2P 0R3 Tel: 416 894-5276 Tel: 613 695-8855 Ext. 102 Fax: 416 326-4015 Fax: 613 695-8580 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Counsel for the Intervener, the Attorney Agent for the Intervener, the Attorney General of Ontario General of Ontario RANDY STEELE D. LYNNE WATT Attorney General of Alberta Gowling WLG (Canada) LLP 10025 – 102A Avenue, 11th Floor, Oxford 160 Elgin Street, Suite 2600 Tower Ottawa, ON K1P 1C3 Edmonton, AB T5J 2Z2 Tel: 613 786-8695 Tel: 780 422-6619 Fax: 613 788-3509 Fax: 780 643-0852 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Counsel for the Intervener, the Attorney Agent for the Intervener, the Attorney General of Alberta General of Alberta VANESSA JOANNISSE-GOULET Pelletier avocats 4905 Lapinière Boul., Suite 2200 Brossard, QC J4Z 0G2 Tel: 450 462-9800, ext 8420 Fax: 450 676-4454 Email: [email protected] Counsel for the Intervener, the Organisme d’autoréglementation du courtage immobilier du Québec TABLE OF CONTENTS I. OVERVIEW AND STATEMENT OF FACTS ....................................................................... 1 II. ISSUES ..................................................................................................................................... 4 III. STATEMENT OF ARGUMENT ......................................................................................... 4 A. The purpose of and legal framework applicable to s. 96 of the Constitution Act, 1867 ....... 4 1. The three-part test for determining whether a grant of subject-matter jurisdiction to a non-s. 96 court
Load more

Recommended publications
  • File Its Certiorari Petition Until August 2020,1 and Therefore This Court Likely Would Not Determine Whether to Grant Or Deny That Petition Until at Least
    No. 19A1035 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States _______________ UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Applicant, v. COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY OF THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES _______________ On Application for Stay of the Mandate of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit _______________ OPPOSITION TO APPLICATION FOR A STAY OF MANDATE _______________ Annie L. Owens Douglas N. Letter Joshua A. Geltzer Counsel of Record Mary B. McCord Todd B. Tatelman Daniel B. Rice Megan Barbero INSTITUTE FOR CONSTITUTIONAL Josephine Morse ADVOCACY AND PROTECTION Adam A. Grogg Georgetown University Law Center Jonathan B. Schwartz 600 New Jersey Avenue N.W. OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL Washington, D.C. 20001 U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES (202) 662-9042 219 Cannon House Building [email protected] Washington, D.C. 20515 (202) 225-9700 [email protected] Counsel for Committee on the Judiciary of the United States House of Representatives TABLE OF CONTENTS STATEMENT ................................................................................................................. 3 ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................. 9 I. This Court Should Deny A Stay Of The Mandate Pending Certiorari ............. 9 A. DOJ Cannot Show A Reasonable Probability That This Court Will Grant Certiorari ..................................................................................... 10 B. DOJ Cannot Establish A Fair Prospect That
    [Show full text]
  • Supreme Court of Canada Judgment in Chevron Corp V Yaiguaje 2015
    SUPREME COURT OF CANADA CITATION: Chevron Corp. v. Yaiguaje, 2015 SCC 42 DATE: 20150904 DOCKET: 35682 BETWEEN: Chevron Corporation and Chevron Canada Limited Appellants and Daniel Carlos Lusitande Yaiguaje, Benancio Fredy Chimbo Grefa, Miguel Mario Payaguaje Payaguaje, Teodoro Gonzalo Piaguaje Payaguaje, Simon Lusitande Yaiguaje, Armando Wilmer Piaguaje Payaguaje, Angel Justino Piaguaje Lucitante, Javier Piaguaje Payaguaje, Fermin Piaguaje, Luis Agustin Payaguaje Piaguaje, Emilio Martin Lusitande Yaiguaje, Reinaldo Lusitande Yaiguaje, Maria Victoria Aguinda Salazar, Carlos Grefa Huatatoca, Catalina Antonia Aguinda Salazar, Lidia Alexandria Aguinda Aguinda, Clide Ramiro Aguinda Aguinda, Luis Armando Chimbo Yumbo, Beatriz Mercedes Grefa Tanguila, Lucio Enrique Grefa Tanguila, Patricio Wilson Aguinda Aguinda, Patricio Alberto Chimbo Yumbo, Segundo Angel Amanta Milan, Francisco Matias Alvarado Yumbo, Olga Gloria Grefa Cerda, Narcisa Aida Tanguila Narvaez, Bertha Antonia Yumbo Tanguila, Gloria Lucrecia Tanguila Grefa, Francisco Victor Tanguila Grefa, Rosa Teresa Chimbo Tanguila, Maria Clelia Reascos Revelo, Heleodoro Pataron Guaraca, Celia Irene Viveros Cusangua, Lorenzo Jose Alvarado Yumbo, Francisco Alvarado Yumbo, Jose Gabriel Revelo Llore, Luisa Delia Tanguila Narvaez, Jose Miguel Ipiales Chicaiza, Hugo Gerardo Camacho Naranjo, Maria Magdalena Rodriguez Barcenes, Elias Roberto Piyahuaje Payahuaje, Lourdes Beatriz Chimbo Tanguila, Octavio Ismael Cordova Huanca, Maria Hortencia Viveros Cusangua, Guillermo Vincente Payaguaje Lusitante, Alfredo Donaldo Payaguaje Payaguaje and Delfin Leonidas Payaguaje Payaguaje Respondents - and - International Human Rights Program at the University of Toronto Faculty of Law, MiningWatch Canada, Canadian Centre for International Justice and Justice and Corporate Accountability Project Interveners CORAM: McLachlin C.J. and Abella, Rothstein, Cromwell, Karakatsanis, Wagner and Gascon JJ. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT: Gascon J. (McLachlin C.J. and Abella, Rothstein, (paras. 1 to 96) Cromwell, Karakatsanis and Wagner JJ.
    [Show full text]
  • Superior Court of Québec 2010 2014 Activity Report
    SUPERIOR COURT OF QUÉBEC 2010 2014 ACTIVITY REPORT A COURT FOR CITIZENS SUPERIOR COURT OF QUÉBEC 2010 2014 ACTIVITY REPORT A COURT FOR CITIZENS CLICK HERE — TABLE OF CONTENTS The drawing on the cover is the red rosette found on the back of the collar of the judge’s gown. It was originally used in England, where judges wore wigs: their black rosettes, which were applied vertically, prevented their wigs from rubbing against and wearing out the collars of their gowns. Photo on page 18 Robert Levesque Photos on pages 29 and 30 Guy Lacoursière This publication was written and produced by the Office of the Chief Justice of the Superior Court of Québec 1, rue Notre-Dame Est Montréal (Québec) H2Y 1B6 Phone: 514 393-2144 An electronic version of this publication is available on the Court website (www.tribunaux.qc.ca) © Superior Court of Québec, 2015 Legal deposit – Bibliothèque et Archives nationales du Québec, 2015 Library and Archives Canada ISBN: 978-2-550-73409-3 (print version) ISBN: 978-2-550-73408-6 (PDF) CLICK HERE — TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents 04 A Message from the Chief Justice 06 The Superior Court 0 7 Sectors of activity 07 Civil Chamber 08 Commercial Chamber 10 Family Chamber 12 Criminal Chamber 14 Class Action Chamber 16 Settlement Conference Chamber 19 Districts 19 Division of Montréal 24 Division of Québec 31 Case management, waiting times and priority for certain cases 33 Challenges and future prospects 34 Court committees 36 The Superior Court over the Years 39 The judges of the Superior Court of Québec November 24, 2014 A message from the Chief Justice I am pleased to present the Four-Year Report of the Superior Court of Québec, covering the period 2010 to 2014.
    [Show full text]
  • National Directory of Courts in Canada
    Catalogue no. 85-510-XIE National Directory of Courts in Canada August 2000 Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics Statistics Statistique Canada Canada How to obtain more information Specific inquiries about this product and related statistics or services should be directed to: Information and Client Service, Statistics Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0T6 (telephone: (613) 951-9023 or 1 800 387-2231). For information on the wide range of data available from Statistics Canada, you can contact us by calling one of our toll-free numbers. You can also contact us by e-mail or by visiting our Web site. National inquiries line 1 800 263-1136 National telecommunications device for the hearing impaired 1 800 363-7629 Depository Services Program inquiries 1 800 700-1033 Fax line for Depository Services Program 1 800 889-9734 E-mail inquiries [email protected] Web site www.statcan.ca Ordering and subscription information This product, Catalogue no. 85-510-XPB, is published as a standard printed publication at a price of CDN $30.00 per issue. The following additional shipping charges apply for delivery outside Canada: Single issue United States CDN $ 6.00 Other countries CDN $ 10.00 This product is also available in electronic format on the Statistics Canada Internet site as Catalogue no. 85-510-XIE at a price of CDN $12.00 per issue. To obtain single issues or to subscribe, visit our Web site at www.statcan.ca, and select Products and Services. All prices exclude sales taxes. The printed version of this publication can be ordered by • Phone (Canada and United States) 1 800 267-6677 • Fax (Canada and United States) 1 877 287-4369 • E-mail [email protected] • Mail Statistics Canada Dissemination Division Circulation Management 120 Parkdale Avenue Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0T6 • And, in person at the Statistics Canada Reference Centre nearest you, or from authorised agents and bookstores.
    [Show full text]
  • Relevance and Proportionality in the Rules of Civil Procedure in Canadian Jurisdictions
    T HE S EDONA C ONFERENCE ® W ORKING G ROUP S ERIES SM THE SEDONA CANADA SM COMMENTARY ON PROPORTIONALITY IN ELECTRONIC DISCLOSURE & D ISCOVERY A Project of The Sedona Conference ® Working Group 7 (WG7) Sedona Canada SM OCTOBER 2010 Copyright © 2010, The Sedona Conference ® The Sedona Canada SM Commentary on Proportionality in Electronic Disclosure and Discovery Working Group 7 “Sedona Canada SM ” OCTOBER 2010 P UBLIC COMMENT VERSION Author: The Sedona Conference ® Commentary Drafting Team : Sedona Canada SM Editorial Board: Todd J. Burke Justice Colin L. Campbell Justice Colin L. Campbell Robert J. C. Deane (chair) Jean-François De Rico Peg Duncan Peg Duncan Kelly Friedman (ex officio) Edmund Huang Karen B. Groulx Kristian Littman Dominic Jaar Edwina Podemski Glenn Smith James T. Swanson The Sedona Conference ® also wishes to acknowledge the members of The Sedona Conference ® Working Group 7 (“Sedona Canada SM ”) who contributed to the dialogue while this Commentary was a work-in-progress. We also wish to thank all of our Working Group Series SM Sponsors, whose support is essential to The Sedona Conference’s ® ability to develop Working Group Series SM publications such as this. For a complete listing of our Sponsors, click on the “Sponsors” navigation bar on the home page of our website at www.thesedonaconference.org . Copyright © 2010 The Sedona Conference ® All Rights Reserved. REPRINT REQUESTS: Requests for reprints or reprint information should be directed to Richard Braman, Executive Director of The Sedona Conference ®, at [email protected] or 1-866-860-6600. The opinions expressed in this publication, unless otherwise attributed, represent consensus views of the members of The Sedona Conference ® Working Group 7 (“Sedona Canada SM ”) .
    [Show full text]
  • Manitoba, Attorney General of New Brunswick, Attorney General of Québec
    Court File No. 38663 and 38781 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (On Appeal from the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal) IN THE MATTER OF THE GREENHOUSE GAS POLLUTION ACT, Bill C-74, Part V AND IN THE MATTER OF A REFERENCE BY THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR IN COUNCIL TO THE COURT OF APPEAL UNDER THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS ACT, 2012, SS 2012, c C-29.01 BETWEEN: ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SASKATCHEWAN APPELLANT -and- ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA RESPONDENT -and- ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIO, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ALBERTA, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF BRITISH COLUMBIA, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MANITOBA, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW BRUNSWICK, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF QUÉBEC INTERVENERS (Title of Proceeding continued on next page) FACTUM OF THE INTERVENER, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MANITOBA (Pursuant to Rule 42 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada) ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MANITOBA GOWLING WLG (CANADA) LLP Legal Services Branch, Constitutional Law Section Barristers & Solicitors 1230 - 405 Broadway Suite 2600, 160 Elgin Street Winnipeg MB R3C 3L6 Ottawa ON K1P 1C3 Michael Conner / Allison Kindle Pejovic D. Lynne Watt Tel: (204) 391-0767/(204) 945-2856 Tel: (613) 786-8695 Fax: (204) 945-0053 Fax: (613) 788-3509 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for the Intervener Ottawa Agent for the Intervener -and - SASKATCHEWAN POWER CORPORATION AND SASKENERGY INCORPORATED, CANADIAN TAXPAYERS FEDERATION, UNITED CONSERVATIVE ASSOCIATION, AGRICULTURAL PRODUCERS ASSOCIATION OF SASKATCHEWAN INC., INTERNATIONAL EMISSIONS TRADING ASSOCIATION, CANADIAN PUBLIC HEALTH
    [Show full text]
  • Youth Activity Book (PDF)
    Supreme Court of Canada Youth Activity Book Photos Philippe Landreville, photographer Library and Archives Canada JU5-24/2016E-PDF 978-0-660-06964-7 Supreme Court of Canada, 2019 Hello! My name is Amicus. Welcome to the Supreme Court of Canada. I will be guiding you through this activity book, which is a fun-filled way for you to learn about the role of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Canadian judicial system. I am very proud to have been chosen to represent the highest court in the country. The owl is a good ambassador for the Supreme Court because it symbolizes wisdom and learning and because it is an animal that lives in Canada. The Supreme Court of Canada stands at the top of the Canadian judicial system and is therefore Canada’s highest court. This means that its decisions are final. The cases heard by the Supreme Court of Canada are those that raise questions of public importance or important questions of law. It is time for you to test your knowledge while learning some very cool facts about Canada’s highest court. 1 Colour the official crest of the Supreme Court of Canada! The crest of the Supreme Court is inlaid in the centre of the marble floor of the Grand Entrance Hall. It consists of the letters S and C encircled by a garland of leaves and was designed by Ernest Cormier, the building’s architect. 2 Let’s play detective: Find the words and use the remaining letters to find a hidden phrase. The crest of the Supreme Court is inlaid in the centre of the marble floor of the Grand Entrance Hall.
    [Show full text]
  • Conservatives, the Supreme Court of Canada, and the Constitution: Judicial-Government Relations, 2006–2015 Christopher Manfredi Mcgill University
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by York University, Osgoode Hall Law School Osgoode Hall Law Journal Article 6 Volume 52, Issue 3 (Summer 2015) Conservatives, the Supreme Court of Canada, and the Constitution: Judicial-Government Relations, 2006–2015 Christopher Manfredi McGill University Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/ohlj Part of the Law Commons Article This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License. Citation Information Manfredi, Christopher. "Conservatives, the Supreme Court of Canada, and the Constitution: Judicial-Government Relations, 2006–2015." Osgoode Hall Law Journal 52.3 (2015) : 951-984. http://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/ohlj/vol52/iss3/6 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. Conservatives, the Supreme Court of Canada, and the Constitution: Judicial-Government Relations, 2006–2015 Abstract Three high-profile government losses in the Supreme Court of Canada in late 2013 and early 2014, combined with the government’s response to those losses, generated a narrative of an especially fractious relationship between Stephen Harper’s Conservative government and the Court. This article analyzes this narrative more rigorously by going beyond a mere tallying of government wins and losses in the Court. Specifically, it examines Charter-based invalidations of federal legislation since 2006, three critical reference opinions rendered at the government’s own request, and two key judgments delivered in the spring of 2015 concerning Aboriginal rights and the elimination of the long-gun registry.
    [Show full text]
  • Constitutional Courts Versus Supreme Courts
    SYMPOSIUM Constitutional courts versus supreme courts Lech Garlicki* Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/icon/article/5/1/44/722508 by guest on 30 September 2021 Constitutional courts exist in most of the civil law countries of Westem Europe, and in almost all the new democracies in Eastem Europe; even France has developed its Conseil Constitutionnel into a genuine constitutional jurisdiction. While their emergence may be regarded as one of the most successful improvements on traditional European concepts of democracy and the rule of law, it has inevitably given rise to questions about the distribution of power at the supreme judicial level. As constitutional law has come to permeate the entire structure of the legal system, it has become impossible to maintain a fi rm delimitation between the functions of the constitutional court and those of ordinary courts. This article looks at various confl icts arising between the higher courts of Germany, Italy, Poland, and France, and concludes that, in both positive and negative lawmaking, certain tensions are bound to exist as a necessary component of centralized judicial review. 1 . The Kelsenian model: Parallel supreme jurisdictions 1.1 The model The centralized Kelsenian system of judicial review is built on two basic assu- mptions. It concentrates the power of constitutional review within a single judicial body, typically called a constitutional court, and it situates that court outside the traditional structure of the judicial branch. While this system emerged more than a century after the United States’ system of diffused review, it has developed — particularly in Europe — into a widely accepted version of constitutional protection and control.
    [Show full text]
  • The Common Law Jurisdiction of the United States Courts
    YALE LAW JOURNAL VOL. XVII NOVEMBER, 1907 No. i THE COMMON LAW JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES COURTS To me it seems clear, beyond question, that neither in the Constitution, nor in the statutes enacted by Congress, nor in the judgments of the Supreme Court of the United States can there be found any substantial support for the proposition that, since the adoption of the Constitution, the principles of the Common Law have been wholly abrogated touching such matters as are by that instrument placed within the exclusive control of the National Goverment. (Judge Shiras in Murray v. Chicago & N. W. Rly. Co., 62 Fed. 24.) To whatever has required for its upbuilding the prolonged activity of countless men, in one generation after another, whether expressed in unconfined exertion of physical labor which produces for our astonishment a pyramid, a cathedral, or in endless mental effort which evolves for our wonder a science, an art, a system of law, men have always paid respect. As conferred upon a system of law, that respect has always, in English-speaking countries, been acorded to the Common Law. Law exists for justice, and Webster said: "The Common Law is a fcuntain of justice, perennial and per- petual." Rightly did he as a representative American pay this tribute, for to the founders ot this government there never had been another system of law. They were, in large measure, descendants of those Englishmen who, centuries back, had ceaselessly petitioned for YALE LAW JOURNAL recognition of their rights of person and property; had finally obtained them, and from that foundation had ever thereafter through their courts received justice as their due.
    [Show full text]
  • WHICH COURT IS BINDING?1 Binding Vs
    WHICH COURT IS BINDING?1 Binding vs. Persuasive Cases © 2017 The Writing Center at GULC. All rights reserved. You have found the perfect case: the facts are similar to yours and the law is on point. But does the court before which you are practicing (or, in law school, the jurisdiction to which you have been assigned) have to follow the case? Stare decisis is the common law principle that requires courts to follow precedents set by other courts. Under stare decisis, courts are obliged to follow some precedents, but not others. Because of the many layers of our federal system, it can be difficult to figure out which decisions bind a given court. This handout is designed to help you determine which decisions are mandatory and which are persuasive on the court before which you are practicing. Binding versus Persuasive Authority: What’s the Difference? • Binding authority, also referred to as mandatory authority, refers to cases, statutes, or regulations that a court must follow because they bind the court. • Persuasive authority refers to cases, statutes, or regulations that the court may follow but does not have to follow. To get started, ask yourself two questions: 1) Are the legal issues in your case governed by state or federal law? and 2) Which court are you in? Once you know the answers to these questions, you are well on your way to determining whether a decision is mandatory or persuasive. Step 1: Are the Legal Issues in Your Case Governed by Federal or State Law? First, a lawyer needs to know the facts and issues of the case.
    [Show full text]
  • Summary of the Presentation of Chief Judge
    The Practice of Law in Canada Speakers: Hon. Élizabeth Corte Chief Justice of the Court of Québec Frederick Carle Frederick Carle, Attorney Lynne Kassie, Ad. E. Robinson Sheppard Shapiro Gregory Moore Gregory Moore, Attorney Gilles Ouimet, Ad. E Member of the National Assembly for Fabre & Official Opposition Critic for Justice Catherine Pilon Dentons Bernard Synott Fasken Martineau FAIRFAX BAR ASSOCIATION CLE SEMINAR Any views expressed in these materials are those of the individual authors and do not necessarily represent the views of any of the authors’ organizations or of the Fairfax Bar Association. The materials are for general instructional purposes only and are not offered for use in lieu of legal research and analysis by an appropriately qualified attorney. *Registrants, instructors, exhibitors and guests attending the FBA events agree they may be photographed, videotaped and/or recorded during the event. The photographic, video and recorded materials are the sole property of the FBA and the FBA reserves the right to use attendees’ names and likenesses in promotional materials or for any other legitimate purpose without providing monetary compensation. Court of Québec The Honourable Élizabeth Corte Chief Judge of the Court of Québec Called to the Bar on January 11, 1974, Élizabeth Corte practised her profession exclusively at the Montreal offices of Legal Aid. At the time of her appointment to the Cour du Québec, she was the assistant director of legal services in criminal and penal affairs. In addition to teaching criminal law at École du Barreau de Montréal since 1986, she has given courses on criminal procedure and evidence at Université de Montréal's École de criminologie.
    [Show full text]