Public policy inquiry and advice as an aspect of constitutional reform

1998 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 107-127
Author(s):  
Anthony Barker
2020 ◽  
Vol 36 ◽  
pp. 138-163
Author(s):  
Jane Thomson

Discrimination has long been identified as detrimental to the basic functioning of multicultural countries like Canada. While governments have adopted constitutional law and passed human rights legislation to combat and control discrimination, these laws are inapplicable to a significant portion of Canadian law. Areas of private law, such as wills and trusts are therefore more vulnerable to use by individuals seeking to perpetuate discrimination. The main way that courts in Canada have dealt with this issue is through the use of the doctrine of public policy. As early as the 19th century, private law provisions viewed as restraining another’s freedom of religion or perpetuating discrimination on grounds such as race, ethnicity, or sexual orientation have been found contrary to public policy by Canadian courts and voided accordingly. While the uniquely Canadian jurisprudence in this area continues to evolve, until quite recently, its trajectory appeared to be one of expansion. However, the latest appellate level decision in this area,Spence v. BMO Trust Co., appears to have changed the course of this jurisprudence.  In Spence, the Ontario Court of Appeal found that certain testamentary clauses, no matter how discriminatory in nature, can never be subject to a public policy review. This article argues that while the result of Spence was likely correct on its particular facts, the reasoning of that decision goes too far in its attempt to limit the doctrine’s applicability with respect to discrimination in the private law. Parts of the decision in Spence ignore the key message of past decisions in this area concerning the danger of uncensored discrimination in Canadian society. While reasonable people may disagree on the outcome of any given public policy inquiry, a point that should attract consensus is that the private law should never be an unexamined and impenetrable shelter for discrimination. However, Spence effectively creates an area of the private law immune to legal scrutiny by precluding the use of the common law doctrine that has been used to directly confront and censure discrimination in Canadian private law.


Author(s):  
Frank Fischer

The argumentation turn in policy analysis emerged in the late 1980s as a response to questions concerning social relevance and usable knowledge. Toward this end, it focused on an apparent gap between policy inquiry and real-world policymaking. Basic to the approach was a challenge to the ‘value free’ positivist orientation that has shaped the field of policy analysis, underscoring in particular the limits of the technocratic practices to which it gave rise. After tracing the political and academic debates that surrounded the uses of policy analysis, the chapter presents the alternative argumentative orientation and its post-positivist methodological perspective. The discussion emphasizes its language-based foundations and outlines the logic of a deliberative-analytic framework for the assessment of policy argumentation. It illustrates the ways that policy analysis needs to integrate empirical and normative inquiry. Policy findings and practical policy argumentation are interpreted by decision-makers and citizens in terms of their relations to the larger framework of norms and values that imbue them with social and political meanings. Moving beyond a narrow empirical assignment, the argumentative turn seeks to assist these actors by also drawing out these normative connections. It is, as such, an effort to make good on Harold Lasswell's call for a 'policy science' of democracy.


2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 472-495
Author(s):  
Stavros Brekoulakis

Abstract This article is concerned with the function of English judges in employing the doctrine of public policy to decide cases under common law. For the first time, the article offers a critical appraisal of the recent evolution of public policy and decision making under English law from a structured doctrine of legal rules and limited judicial discretion to an open-ended principle of subjective evaluations. The main thesis of the article is that the latest judicial amendment of the nature of the public policy inquiry constitutes a radical and unnecessary departure from generally accepted propositions on the appropriate function of English judges in addressing issues of public policy.


ASHA Leader ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 17 (15) ◽  
pp. 23-23
Author(s):  
George Lyons
Keyword(s):  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document