Diagnostic Adjudication in Appellate Courts: The Supreme Court of Canada and the Charter of Rights

Three distinct adjudicatory processes are found in appellate courts: decisional adjudication (applying principles), procedural adjudication (choosing among principles), and diagnostic adjudication (defining and developing principles). The Supreme Court of Canada has traditionally used procedural adjudication, in which the adversary process frames issues and generates supporting material. However, the Court\u27s decreased caseload, its increased discretion to select cases, and the arrival of a new wave of issues under the Charter of Rights has shifted the Court\u27s work to diagnostic adjudication. As judgment becomes less a choice problem and more a creative exercise, both the degree and kind of judicial involvement changes. Thusfar, however, the Court\u27s administrative responses to the pressure of its work have had limited success. To be effective, reforms in the way the Court organizes and processes its work must derive from an analysis of the requirements of diagnostic adjudication. The paper concludes by suggesting an overall approach and making specific proposals

The Ontario Court of Appeal and Speedy Justice

The authors use a data sample collected from the Ontario Court of Appeal minute books between 1983 and 1987 to analyze how appeals move through the province\u27s highest court. Criminal and, chiefly, sentence appeals dominate the Court\u27s agenda. Hearing times-the duration of argument and rendering of judgment-are shorter than commonly believed, most often lasting less than twenty minutes. Elapsed times-the period between end of trial and beginning of hearing-are, on average, 77 per cent longer for civil than criminal appeals, 52 per cent longer for defendant than crown appeals, and 23 per cent longer for fall than spring appeals. Elapsed times are also compared with data on United States appeal courts, and the use of appellate case-flow management is considered

The Ontario Court of Appeal and Speedy Justice

The authors use a data sample collected from the Ontario Court of Appeal minute books between 1983 and 1987 to analyze how appeals move through the province\u27s highest court. Criminal and, chiefly, sentence appeals dominate the Court\u27s agenda. Hearing times-the duration of argument and rendering of judgment-are shorter than commonly believed, most often lasting less than twenty minutes. Elapsed times-the period between end of trial and beginning of hearing-are, on average, 77 per cent longer for civil than criminal appeals, 52 per cent longer for defendant than crown appeals, and 23 per cent longer for fall than spring appeals. Elapsed times are also compared with data on United States appeal courts, and the use of appellate case-flow management is considered

Alternative Models of Court Administration

[À l'origine dans / Was originally part of : CRDP - Droit et technologies d'information et de communication]Report commissioned and reproduced with the permission of the Canadian Judicial CouncilCanadian Judicial Counci

Modèles d'administration des tribunaux judiciaires

[À l'origine dans / Was originally part of : CRDP - Droit et technologies d'information et de communication]Rapport commandé et reproduit avec la permission du Conseil canadien de la MagistratureConseil canadien de la magistratur

Evaluation of the Ontario Mediation Program (Rule 24.1) Final Report: The First 23 Months

https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/faculty_books/1142/thumbnail.jp

Evaluation of the Ontario Mediation Program (Rule 24.1) Final Report: The First 23 Months

https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/faculty_books/1142/thumbnail.jp

A Phosphatidylinositol 3-Kinase/Protein Kinase B-independent Activation of Mammalian Target of Rapamycin Signaling Is Sufficient to Induce Skeletal Muscle Hypertrophy

Overexpression of Rheb activates mTOR signaling via a PI3K/PKB-independent mechanism and is sufficient to induce skeletal muscle hypertrophy. The hypertrophic effects of Rheb are driven through a rapamycin-sensitive (RS) mechanism, mTOR is the RS element that confers the hypertrophy and the kinase activity of mTOR is necessary for this event

Diagnostic Adjudication in Appellate Courts: The Supreme Court of Canada and the Charter of Rights

Three distinct adjudicatory processes are found in appellate courts: decisional adjudication (applying principles), procedural adjudication (choosing among principles), and diagnostic adjudication (defining and developing principles). The Supreme Court of Canada has traditionally used procedural adjudication, in which the adversary process frames issues and generates supporting material. However, the Court\u27s decreased caseload, its increased discretion to select cases, and the arrival of a new wave of issues under the Charter of Rights has shifted the Court\u27s work to diagnostic adjudication. As judgment becomes less a choice problem and more a creative exercise, both the degree and kind of judicial involvement changes. Thusfar, however, the Court\u27s administrative responses to the pressure of its work have had limited success. To be effective, reforms in the way the Court organizes and processes its work must derive from an analysis of the requirements of diagnostic adjudication. The paper concludes by suggesting an overall approach and making specific proposals