Strange Expectations: A Review of Two Theories of Judicial Review

The author examines two theories of judicial review under the Charter, one proposed by D.M. Beatty in Putting the Charter to Work: Designing a Constitutional Labour Code, and the other by P. Monahan in Politics and the Constitution: The Charter, Federalism and the Supreme Court of Canada. He demonstrates how each of these theories attempts to reconcile judicial review under the Charter with the principles of democracy by portraying it (judicial review) as a means for realizing these principles. He then argues that both efforts are ultimately unsuccessful and, indeed, only compound the problems they identify and set out to redress

Constitutional Arguments: Interpretation and Legitimacy in Canadian Constitutional Thought

The author provides an analysis and critique of the various types of arguments advanced by Canadian constitutional jurists to establish formal grounds for the legitimacy of judicial review under the Canadian constitution. He demonstrates how two variables - constitutional truth and trust in the judiciary - are relied upon in past and contemporary debates about constitutional adjudication to construct four different types of argument about the legitimacy of judicial review. Each of these types of argument is then criticized in the context of recent Charter decisions. It is argued that none of them can sustain the burden of legitimating judicial review

Constitutional Arguments: Interpretation and Legitimacy in Canadian Constitutional Thought

The author provides an analysis and critique of the various types of arguments advanced by Canadian constitutional jurists to establish formal grounds for the legitimacy of judicial review under the Canadian constitution. He demonstrates how two variables - constitutional truth and trust in the judiciary - are relied upon in past and contemporary debates about constitutional adjudication to construct four different types of argument about the legitimacy of judicial review. Each of these types of argument is then criticized in the context of recent Charter decisions. It is argued that none of them can sustain the burden of legitimating judicial review

Getting to the Bottom of Meech Lake: A Discussion of Some Recent Writings on the 1987 Constitutional Accord

Publié par la Revue de droit d'Ottawa.[À l'origine dans / Was originally part of : Fac. Droit - Coll. facultaire - Droit constitutionnel et Libertés publiques

Spacing Out: Towards a Critical Geography of Law

The authors analyze the interconnections between space, law, and power and forge links between critical studies in law and geography. Analytical categories of space-for example, the divide between public and private space, or the concept of national citizenship-are all politically constructed. The authors analyze Canadian and American concepts of federalism and their impact on regulating worker safety. A common judicial mapping of work, local space, and state regulation determines whether local officials have enforcement authority in contexts where national worker safety regulations apply. Through this analysis, the authors illustrate the potential for future studies in critical legal geography

Spacing Out: Towards a Critical Geography of Law

The authors analyze the interconnections between space, law, and power and forge links between critical studies in law and geography. Analytical categories of space-for example, the divide between public and private space, or the concept of national citizenship-are all politically constructed. The authors analyze Canadian and American concepts of federalism and their impact on regulating worker safety. A common judicial mapping of work, local space, and state regulation determines whether local officials have enforcement authority in contexts where national worker safety regulations apply. Through this analysis, the authors illustrate the potential for future studies in critical legal geography

Developments in Constitutional Law: The 1993-94 Term

This paper seeks to draw out four different, and often conflicting, themes that inform the Supreme Court of Canada\u27s constitutional decision making. Each theme expresses a conception of the Canadian state, and taken together they represent, arguably, the current range of dominant views regarding the appropriate role of the state in Canada: classical liberalism, federalism, social democracy and neo-liberalism. Explicit and implicit reliance upon these conceptions of the state can be understood as reflecting the Court\u27s concern to stay in step with its perception of contemporary social consensus on the large political issues lurking behind every constitutional question it addresses. The fact that four different and potentially conflicting themes are developed in answer to this question suggests that the members of the Court have not been able to identify what the social consensus is; or, far more likely, a social consensus does not exist on the desirable scope and content of state power, only competing ideals