Groping Towards a Canadian Tort Law: The Role of the Supreme Court of Canada

1971 ◽  
Vol 21 (3) ◽  
pp. 267
Author(s):  
Paul C. Weiler
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Tort Law ◽  
Supreme Court Of Canada ◽  
The Supreme Court

scholarly journals Causation in Tort Law: Back to Basics at the Supreme Court of Canada

1997 ◽  
Vol 35 (4) ◽  
pp. 1013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mitchell McInnes
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Tort Law ◽  
Supreme Court Of Canada ◽  
Complex Problems ◽  
The Supreme Court

This article analyzes the role of causation in Canadian tort law. The author uses the recent Supreme Court of Canada decision of Athey v. Leonati as a model to show how even complex problems of causation can be solved through the application of fundamental principles of tort law: the "restoration" principle, the "take your victim" principle, and the "vicissitudes" principle. The author also demonstrates the importance of distinguishing types of causes based on the following dichotomies: tortious and non-tortious, sufficient and insufficient, and simultaneous and successive. The author argues that applying these principles, and distinguishing causes in this manner, will greatly simplify the resolution of even seemingly complex problems of causation in tort law.

Repeat Litigators and Agenda Setting on the Supreme Court of Canada

2002 ◽  
Vol 35 (4) ◽  
pp. 811-833 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roy B. Flemming ◽  
Glen S. Krutz
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Statistical Models ◽  
Comparative Research ◽  
The United States ◽  
Supreme Court Of Canada ◽  
High Courts ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Selection Of

The expanding public policy role of high courts heightens concerns over whether societal and political inequalities affect the outcomes of litigation. However, comparative research on this question is limited. This article assesses whether status inequalities between parties and differences in the experience and resources of attorneys influence the selection of cases for judicial review in the Supreme Court of Canada. A series of statistical models reveal that governments are more likely than other parties to influence whether leave is granted but that the experience and resources of lawyers, unlike in the United States, have little impact. The decentralized, low volume and high access features of the Canadian process may explain this finding.

scholarly journals The Impact of the Supreme Court of Canada on Intergovernmental Relations

Federalism-E ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Benjamin Goldlist
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Intergovernmental Relations ◽  
Democratic Legitimacy ◽  
Supreme Court Of Canada ◽  
Political Resources ◽  
Canadian Federalism ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Constitutional Adjudication ◽  
The Impact

The role of the Supreme Court in the practice of Canadian federalism, specifically the extent of its power and the effects of that power, is a hotly contested issue in Canadian political science. While some scholars have argued that the Court has taken on too political of a role that must be restricted, this paper develops the Court as a constitutional ‘umpire,’ whose rulings serve the important, but limited, functions of allocating political resources to incentivize negotiation, and establishing jurisdictional boundaries for said negotiations, leaving specific policy decisions to political, as opposed to legal, actors. Concerning the net outcome of the Court’s jurisprudence on the distribution of legislative powers, this paper illustrates the Court’s overall balancing approach, with grants of power to one level of government met with increases in authority to the other, in all major policy areas. Thus, ultimately shown to embrace both a limited and impartial approach to constitutional adjudication, the Court has done much to enhance its democratic legitimacy and constitutional utility.

Part VI Constitutional Theory, D The Role of Constitutional Principles in Canadian Constitutional Law, Ch.47 Constitutional Principles in the Secession Reference

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leclair Jean
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Constitutional Law ◽  
Constitutional Theory ◽  
Supreme Court Of Canada ◽  
Constitutional Order ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Over Time ◽  
Constitutional Changes ◽  
Political Compromises

In Reference Re Secession of Quebec, 1998, the Supreme Court of Canada concluded that the unwritten constitutional principles of federalism and democracy dictated that the clear repudiation of the existing constitutional order and the clear expression of the desire to pursue secession by the population of a province gave rise to a reciprocal obligation on all parties to the federation to negotiate constitutional changes to respond to that desire. To understand this astonishing decision, the author first examines how, over time, in Canada and Quebec, issues of identity(ies), constitutional law, and democracy came to be formulated in absolutist terms, making political compromises next to impossible. Only then does he analyse the Supreme Court’s decision and attempts to explain why the latter chose to decide as it did.

Intergovernmental Relations‘ Third Wheel: The Role of the Supreme Court in an Era of Collaborative Federalism

Federalism-E ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-15
Author(s):  
Allison O‘Beirne
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Intergovernmental Relations ◽  
Supreme Court Of Canada ◽  
Division Of Powers ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Way

The Supreme Court of Canada has an absolutely undeniable role in intergovernmental relations. As the country‘s only constitutionally entrenched body charged with the resolution of division-of-powers disputes, its decisions and rulings are always certain to influence the way in which governments interact with each other. Recently, however, the Supreme Court has come to be less highly regarded as a method of resolving the disputes that arise between governments [...]

Self-determination—Canada—Quebec—right to secede under constitutional law and public international law—role of international law in Canadian courts

1999 ◽  
Vol 93 (2) ◽  
pp. 519-525 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bernard H. Oxman ◽  
Stephen J. Toope
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
International Law ◽  
Constitutional Law ◽  
Democratic Legitimacy ◽  
Supreme Court Of Canada ◽  
Federal Authority ◽  
Unilateral Declaration ◽  
Legal Context ◽  
The Supreme Court

Re Reference by Governor in Council Concerning Certain Questions Relating to Secession of Quebec from Canada.Supreme Court of Canada, August 20, 1998.In an attempt to clarify the legal context in which continuing Canadian constitutional conundrums arise, the federal executive referred three questions to the Supreme Court of Canada regarding the legality under both Canadian constitutional law and international law of a potential unilateral declaration of independence by the Province of Quebec. The Court declared that unilateral secession is not permitted under either Canadian constitutional law or international law. The “underlying principles that animate” the Canadian Constitution preclude secession, even though there is no specific text prohibiting the dismantling of the Canadian state. However, if Quebecers were to vote yes to secession by “a clear majority on a clear question,” democratic legitimacy would be conferred on the secessionist project and a constitutional obligation to negotiate would arise binding the other provinces and the federal authority.

scholarly journals Constructive Trusts in Canada

1969 ◽  
Vol 37 (1) ◽  
pp. 173 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Chambers
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Supreme Court Of Canada ◽  
Unjust Enrichment ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Breach Of Duty

In this article, the author discusses the role of constructive trusts in Canada, examining the connection between unjust enrichment and the constructive trust. In particular, the author focuses on the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Soulas v. Korkontzilas and argues that constructive trusts respond to two main categories of events, the acquisition of assets in breach of duty and intentions to benefit others.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document