Three Cheers for Lord Denman: Reformers, the Irish, and Jury Reforms in Nova Scotia, 1833-1845

This article explores the important place of the jury in the relationship between law, politics, and state in pre-Confederation Nova Scotia. The legislature responded to fears of jury packing by creating more complex procedures for jury selection. These jury selection systems relied for their implementation on committees composed of magistrates and sheriffs, officials who proved unreliable instruments for carrying out a more bureaucratic state policy. Juries also reflected, and influenced, debates about political parties, libel, and the public sphere. In the 1840s, Irish immigrants to Nova Scotia drew upon their experience of packed juries in Ireland to complain that they were systematically excluded from jury service. Political reformers also asserted that officials packed juries against them with their political opponents, especially in high profile libel cases in which tories attempted to silence the increasingly critical reform press. These libel cases highlighted the role of the jury in protecting freedom of the press and therefore reformers’ ability to challenge the tory leadership of the colony. The fierce complaints over jury selection irregularities led to the passage of reform legislation, though a final solution to the politicization of juries remained elusive with the emergence and acceptance of political parties in Nova Scotia.L’article suivant analyse le rôle important du jury au regard de la loi, de la politique et de l’État, dans la Nouvelle-Écosse d’avant la Confédération. Afin d’éviter qu’un jury soit noyauté, l’assemblée législative élabora des procédures complexes pour mieux encadrer la sélection des jurés. La mise en oeuvre de ces procédures relevait de comités composés de magistrats et de shérifs; ces représentants officiels se révélèrent toutefois peu fiables pour appliquer les mesures bureaucratiques instaurées par l’État. Les jurés ne restaient pas imperméables aux débats sur les partis politiques, sur la diffamation et sur les questions relevant du domaine public. Dans les années 1840, les immigrants irlandais installés en Nouvelle-Écosse, forts de leur expérience de noyautage de jury en Irlande, se plaignirent qu’ils n’étaient jamais appelés à faire partie d’un jury. Des réformistes politiques affirmèrent aussi que des représentants officiels choisissaient des jurés défavorables à leur cause, surtout lorsqu’il s’agissait de cas majeurs de poursuite en diffamation, les torys se servant de cette tribune pour tenter de museler une presse réformiste de plus en plus critique. Ces procès en diffamation soulignaient l’importance du rôle du jury dans la protection de la liberté de la presse et montraient conséquemment que les réformistes avaient les moyens d’ébranler le leadership des torys dans la colonie. Les virulentes dénonciations des irrégularités dans la sélection des jurés débouchèrent sur l’adoption d’une loi réformiste; le problème de la politisation des jurés resta cependant difficile à régler entièrement à cause de la montée et de la reconnaissance des partis politiques en Nouvelle-Écosse

“A more disgraceful case it has seldom fallen to our lot to comment upon”: Medical Malpractice in 19th-Century New Brunswick

This article contributes to the scant Canadian historical literature on patients suing doctors for malpractice. It examines a lengthy New Brunswick case, Key v. Thomson in which a jury in Saint Andrews granted the largest damage award in a malpractice suit anywhere in British North America/Canada during the 19th century. This contextualized study provides insight into cultural forces affecting the law, shows how individuals navigated legal processes, demonstrates the complexity and nuances of some malpractice disputes, and sheds light on the attitude of the medical profession to efforts of patient-plaintiffs to use the law to keep doctors accountable.Cet article est une contribution aux rares documents historiques canadiens traitant de patients qui ont poursuivi des médecins pour faute professionnelle. Il examine un long procès tenu au Nouveau-Brunswick, Key c. Thomson, dans lequel un jury de Saint Andrews accorda les dommages-intérêts pour faute professionnelle les plus élevés dans toute l’Amérique du Nord britannique et au Canada au cours du 19e siècle. Cette étude contextualisée donne un aperçu des forces culturelles qui influaient sur les lois, montre comment des individus s’y retrouvaient dans les procédures judiciaires, illustre la complexité et les nuances de certains litiges en matière de faute professionnelle, et met en lumière l’attitude de la profession médicale envers les efforts de patients demandeurs qui utilisaient la loi pour obliger les médecins à rendre des comptes

Challenges for Cause, Stand-Asides, and Peremptory Challenges in the Nineteenth Century

This article examines the substantial differences that emerged during the nineteenth century between the law of England, the United States, and Canada regarding challenges for cause, stand-asides, and peremptory challenges in the jury selection process. The author argues that these differences stemmed from the unique social conditions of each country. The emergence of legal formalism-with its emphasis on certainty and predictability in the law-affected the development of jury challenges, though the result of formalist thinking had very different effects in all three jurisdictions. In addition, Canadian law regarding jury challenges reveals the influence of both American and English legal trends

The Canadian Legal Realists and Administrative Law Scholarship, 1930-1941

Several prominent legal academics in Canada, notably W.P.M. Kennedy, E. Russell Hopkins, J.A. Corry, John P. Humphrey, John Willis, and Jacob Finkelman, argued that the modem Canadian state required the use of government tribunals and boards as a method of implementing policy. As we shall see, the arguments of these authors reflected an important shift in how Canadian legal professionals thought about the law. This article will explore the shifting attitudes within the Canadian legal academy about administrative law between 1930 and 1941. This article will also explore why this change in attitudes occurred, and whether these academics affected the broader Canadian legal community\u27s views about the modem administrative state. These issues will be discussed in a five-part analysis. Section one outlines how Canadian legal professionals considered administrative agencies before 1930. Section two indicates the importance of the Depression to the re-evaluation of administrative law. Section three identifies the major Depression-era legal writers in Canada who discussed the emergence of the regulatory state. In section four, this paper compares and contrasts the major themes of these authors. Finally, section five assesses how the contents of Canada\u27s legal journals at the end of the 1930s indicates a broadening acceptance of administrative law. It will be shown that these academics critiqued traditional ways of thinking about the relationship between citizen and state, and undermined the formalist view of the law, but in the end were less successful in providing an intellectual framework for the future development of Canadian administrative law

The Canadian Legal Realists and Administrative Law Scholarship, 1930-1941

Several prominent legal academics in Canada, notably W.P.M. Kennedy, E. Russell Hopkins, J.A. Corry, John P. Humphrey, John Willis, and Jacob Finkelman, argued that the modem Canadian state required the use of government tribunals and boards as a method of implementing policy. As we shall see, the arguments of these authors reflected an important shift in how Canadian legal professionals thought about the law. This article will explore the shifting attitudes within the Canadian legal academy about administrative law between 1930 and 1941. This article will also explore why this change in attitudes occurred, and whether these academics affected the broader Canadian legal community\u27s views about the modem administrative state. These issues will be discussed in a five-part analysis. Section one outlines how Canadian legal professionals considered administrative agencies before 1930. Section two indicates the importance of the Depression to the re-evaluation of administrative law. Section three identifies the major Depression-era legal writers in Canada who discussed the emergence of the regulatory state. In section four, this paper compares and contrasts the major themes of these authors. Finally, section five assesses how the contents of Canada\u27s legal journals at the end of the 1930s indicates a broadening acceptance of administrative law. It will be shown that these academics critiqued traditional ways of thinking about the relationship between citizen and state, and undermined the formalist view of the law, but in the end were less successful in providing an intellectual framework for the future development of Canadian administrative law

A Legal History of the Regulation of Assault-Style Rifles in Canada

This article provides the first legal history of the regulation of “assault-style” weapons in Canada. A contentious part of Canada’s gun control regime is the firearms classification system that divides guns into non-restricted, restricted, and prohibited firearms. The sale of semi-automatic firearms, often based on military designs that could be quickly fired and reloaded, sparked concerns since the 1970s, particularly after mass shooting events. Canada adopted a classification regime relying on both statutory provisions that used technical details of firearms and Orders-in-Council to name models of firearms as restricted or prohibited weapons. Critics warned that this system allowed private citizens to possess firearm models that can cause substantial harms. This article describes key changes in firearms technology, discusses the legal and criminal uses of assault-style firearms, explores the history of public concern with such guns, and then surveys the development of Canada’s gun control regime. Finally, it considers proposals for future policy options regarding the availability of assault-style weapons. Cet article présente la première histoire juridique de la réglementation des armes de type d’« assaut » au Canada. Le système de classification des armes à feu, qui divise les armes en armes à feu sans restriction, armes à feu à autorisation restreinte et armes à feu prohibées, est un élément controversé du régime canadien de contrôle des armes à feu. La vente d’armes à feu semi-automatiques, souvent de conception militaire, pouvant être tirées et rechargées rapidement, a suscité des inquiétudes depuis les années 1970, en particulier après des fusillades de masse. Le Canada a adopté un régime de classification reposant à la fois sur des dispositions légales qui utilisent les détails techniques des armes à feu et sur des décrets qui désignent des modèles d’armes à feu comme étant des armes à autorisation restreinte ou des armes prohibées. Les critiques ont mis en garde contre le fait que ce système permettait aux particuliers de posséder des modèles d’armes à feu susceptibles de causer des dommages importants. Cet article décrit les principaux changements intervenus dans la technologie des armes à feu, aborde les utilisations légales et criminelles des armes à feu d’assaut, explore l’histoire des préoccupations du public à l’égard de ces armes, puis passe en revue l’évolution du régime de contrôle des armes à feu au Canada. Enfin, il examine les propositions d’options politiques futures concernant la disponibilité des armes d’assaut

The harshness and injustice of the common law rule... has frequenly been commented upon : Debating Contributory Negligence in Canada, 1914-1949

In the early twentieth century many legal professionals damned the law of contributory negligence as complicated and unfair to plaintiffs barred from recovery, while businesspeople often complained thatjudges and juries refused to find sympathetic plaintiffs contributorily negligent. Elite Canadian lawyers, through their work in the Canadian Bar Association and the Commission on Uniformity of Legislation in Canada, proposed model contributory negligence legislation that a number of provinces subsequently adopted. Reviews of these statutes were mixed however The large body of existing case law, despite its complications, encouraged some lawyers and judges to fall back on older jurisprudence in interpreting the new acts. Legislators and law reformers responded by increasing the length and complexity of the negligence statutes, thus undermining the goal of simplifying the law

THE END OF SUPPLY CONTROLS: THE ECONOMIC EFFECTS OF RECENT CHANGE IN FEDERAL PEANUT POLICY

The paper analyzes recent changes in U.S. peanut policy as enacted in the 2002 Farm Security Act. A model representing the impact of the 2002 farm bill on the domestic and foreign prices of edible peanuts is constructed and the gains and losses to peanut producing states are measured.Agricultural and Food Policy,