The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that the federal Impact Assessment Act needs amendments for Constitutional compliance, but the court’s recommended approach is no longer viable.
Justin Trudeau has been in power for almost a decade, achieving some of his objectives and stalling on others. What will be his legacy, and is constitutional reform in the cards in the next two years?
In the decades to come, Canada’s Supreme Court will undoubtedly issue rulings related to climate change, Indigenous Peoples and other critical issues. Justin Trudeau’s legacy will be evident.
A Supreme Court reference on the notwithstanding clause could look beyond the highly polarized reactions to any particular law and get at the heart of the issue.
More than a dozen women’s organizations pleaded with the federal government to slow down and treat their concerns seriously about Bill C-28. It didn’t listen.
Decision-making in the Canadian Supreme Court appears to be more fundamentally rooted in the law, not politics, than it is in the United States. Here’s why.
Differing U.S. and Canadian political and judicial systems offer Canada protections against outlawing abortion here. But there’s still a lot of work to be done to ensure reproductive justice.
Legislating a woman’s right to timely access to abortions, rather than simply ensuring she’s not punished for having one, is the first step to striking the balance between physician and women’s rights.
By paying greater attention to the originally intended application of the Canadian Constitution’s notwithstanding clause, along with the diversity of lawmakers in Canada, there’s a better path forward.
Pitting the representation of historically marginalized groups on the Supreme Court against another constitutionally protected minority — Canada’s francophones — is a misguided race to the bottom.
In its decision, the Supreme Court of Canada recognized the gravity of climate change and upheld the idea that Parliament has the authority to act on matters of “peace, order and good government.”
Jennifer Quaid, L’Université d’Ottawa/University of Ottawa
The Supreme Court of Canada’s recent ruling against a company that claimed a fine against it constituted cruel and unusual punishment will quell fears of weakening corporate law.
The message from commercial fishers is that fishing in St. Marys Bay outside the commercial season is illegal and a conservation concern. In fact, it is neither.
The coronavirus pandemic has forced courtroom proceedings online, and what is now missing are most of the non-verbal cues used to determine whether or not those taking the stand are being truthful.
Canadians should know more about how our government co-operates with other countries in criminal cases. Are we unwittingly risking the lives or rights of those accused of crimes?