Laws Targeting Israel Boycotts Fail First Legal Test

Keyword(s):  
2021 ◽  
Vol 30 (2) ◽  
pp. 53-84
Author(s):  
Joshua Sealy-Harrington

A clear legal test for equality is impossible, as it should be. Indeed were the test clear, it could not be for equality. It would have to be for something other than equality — in effect, for inequality. The abstract character of equality is not a new idea. In fact, the Supreme Court of Canada’s first decision under section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms1 recognized equality as “an elusive concept” that “lacks precise definition.”2 Why, then, do judges continue to demand such definition over thirty years later? The answer, at times, is politics. 1 s 15(1), Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c 11 [Charter].2 Andrews v Law Society of British Columbia, [1989] 1 SCR 143 at 164, 56 DLR (4th) 1 [Andrews].


2020 ◽  
Vol 60 (4) ◽  
pp. 305-308
Author(s):  
Alec Samuels

Suppose that a doctor carrying out a treatment or advising on a treatment or acting as an expert in litigation or writing or lecturing about a treatment is in a minority so far as contemporary medical opinion is concerned. It may be a matter of choice for the doctor between treatment A (the majority practice) or treatment B (the minority practice), and the minority treatment may be of an innovative character. Unfortunately, things went badly wrong, the patient suffered harm and the doctor finds him/herself a defendant in a case for clinical negligence. What is the legal duty of the doctor? Is it sufficient that he/she acted in good faith? Or that he/she was a competent doctor? Or that he/she was a doctor following the practice of a substantial number of doctors, albeit a minority? Or that he/she was in effect acting ‘on his/her own’? The legal test is: Was the doctor following the practice of a responsible body of medical clinical opinion, albeit a minority opinion? Medicine has made huge advances over the years – one of the great achievements. But many advances have come about because of the initiative of one individual or a small group of individuals, often in the face of strong disbelief or opposition. The medical profession is a conservative profession, understandably so in view of the obvious inherent risks. Original ideas may not be well received. Therefore, the minority innovative doctor must proceed carefully because he/she runs the risk of a medical mishap, criticism and litigation.


1995 ◽  
Vol 39 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-18 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tunde I. Ogowewo

The function of a legal test is to navigate the court through various possible solutions to achieve the optimum result in the application of a legal principle. It therefore forms part of the process for securing a just result to a controversy in adversarial proceedings. A well-articulated legal test should reflect the judicial policy on the principle it applies. Such a test should generally yield results that are just and are in consonance with the policy behind the principle. If the test fails in this respect, it ceases to be functional. It is against this background that the one test used by Nigerian courts to determine standing to sue in all doctrinal contexts will be examined.


2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jan Czerwinski ◽  
Pierre Comte ◽  
Martin Güdel ◽  
Andreas Mayer ◽  
Jacques Lemaire ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document