2 research outputs found
Same-sex marriage beyond Charter dialogue: Charter cases and contestation within government
- Author
- Barnes Sue
- Bateup
- Bill C-23
- Bill C-38
- Bill C-38
- Canada
- Department of Justice
- Eight Liberal members of parliament who voted in favour of the opposite-sex definition of marriage in 2003 now voted to recognize civil same-sex marriages including
- Hiebert Janet
- House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs
- Ibid at 7891
- Ibid.
- Ibid.
- Ibid. Similarly appearing before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, McLellan emphasized that the definition of marriage would remain unchanged: ‘Bill C-23 will modernize federal legislation to extend benefits and obligations to common-law same-sex couples in the same way as to common law opposite-sex couples. What is equally important is that Bill C-23 does so while preserving the existing legal definition and societal consensus that marriage is the union of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others, as defined by the courts.
- In contrast to the same-sex relationship recognition cases of the 1980s and 1990s which are characterized by considerable disagreement between and within courts
- In the Court’s view no legal purpose would be served by answering this question since the government had already accepted the rulings of the lower courts on the matter and had adopted it as its own position.
- Lawton Valerie
- MacCharles Tonda
- Manfredi
- McTeague Dan
- Office of the Prime Minister ‘Statement by the Prime Minister on Same Sex Unions’ (17 June 2003) [Office of the Prime Minister, ‘Statement.’]:
- On the relationship between law and popular culture see Brenda Cossman
- Snow David
- Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights
- Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights
- Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights
- The Alliance motion moved by Stephen Harper (leader of the opposition, Canadian Alliance) on 16 September 2003, stated
- The Attorney General was represented by Peter Hogg and Michael Morris.
- The comparison between the 2003 vote and 2005 vote is complicated by the fact that several Liberal Members of Parliament who voted against the
- The Court held that the promotion of the equality rights of one group cannot be seen to undermine the equality rights of another group.
- The first meeting was held 27 November 2002.
- The Ontario government introduced a bill to amend sixty-eight definitions of spouse entitled ‘An Act to Amend Statutes to Comply with the Supreme Court of Canada decision in
- This amendment was first tabled by Progressive Conservative member Pat Carney in 1980 and variations of this bill were introduced at least five times by New Democratic Party (NDP) member Svend Robinson before Allan Rock introduced Bill C-33.
- van Kralingen Alex
- While the immediate remedy may be suspect from the perspective of dialogue theorists it should be emphasized that there was an entirely legitimate legal basis for it
- Publication venue
- 'University of Toronto Press Inc. (UTPress)'
- Publication date
- Field of study
No full textMANAGERIAL LAW
- Author
- A
- A
- Act Companies
- Act Industrial Relations
- Although
- An
- Anderman C.f.
- Annual CAC
- Annual Ch
- Armement Suisse Atlantique
- As
- Bankruptcy Act
- Based
- Bohlen
- Bros Gillespie
- By
- Caiby-Hall
- Carby-Hall
- CEA
- Central Arbitration Committee Annual Report 1977 Ch 3 para 3.1 and Appendix 2.
- Chapman
- Co Torquay Hotel
- Co Torquay Hotel
- Co v. Shaw In Marley
- Contracts
- Contracts Exclusion Clauses
- Coote
- Coote
- Coote
- Courts Contrast
- Daily Telegraph 30 November 1977 - Law Society Masterpolicy introduced in December 1975 - 849 claims by August 1977 on which
- Defined
- Democracy Industrial
- Disclosure
- Donaldson
- Draft Clause
- Drake
- EPA
- EPA
- EPA
- EPA
- EPA
- EPA
- EPA
- EPA
- EPA
- EPA
- EPA
- EPA
- EPA
- Evans J.
- Even
- Fair Trading No
- Few
- For
- For
- For
- For
- H.
- H.L.
- Holdings Tarmac Roadstone
- House
- Ibid
- Ibid
- Ibid
- Ibid Sch
- Ibid Sch
- In
- In
- In the case of National Union of Teachers v.
- Industrial Rule
- Insurance Practice Statement
- Insurance The Statement
- It
- It
- It
- It
- ITT Components Group (Europe) v. Kolah [1977] ICR 740 EAT (decided under TULRA Sch 1 para 9(1) (0 and CEA Sch 1, para 4)
- Jackson D.
- Kahn Freund's
- Kenyon In
- L'Estrange
- Labour Relations This
- Latta G.
- Law Commission
- Law Commission Second Report para 30.
- Law Commission Working Paper No 71
- Lord ICR
- Major
- Members
- Miller James
- Misrepresentation Avoiding
- Molony Committee on Consumer Protection
- National Phonograph Co Ltd v.
- Newspapers Daily Mirror
- No
- No
- Note
- Note Coote
- O'Higgins Hepple
- Parties
- Peek
- Practice EPA
- Relations Labour
- Review Book
- Sarvent
- Schedule
- Schofield
- Scrutton
- See
- Similarly
- Sir John
- Slawson
- Social No
- Some
- Ss EPA
- Ss Ibid
- Stilgoe W.W.
- Such
- The
- The
- The
- The
- The
- The
- There
- This
- This
- Trade ACAS
- Trade Descriptions The
- TULRA
- TULRA
- TULRA
- TULRA
- Two
- Under EPA
- Unfortunately
- v. Avery Scott
- v. Blades Peto
- v. Gye Lumley
- v. Wilsher Mailway
- Wages The Fair
- Wedderbum
- Weekes
- Weir
- Wilson Joshua
- WLR
- Publication venue
- 'Emerald'
- Publication date
- Field of study
No full text
