Reference Re Genetic Non-Discrimination Act: How to Make Space for Some Certainty

In the Reference re Genetic Non-Discrimination Act (Reference) the Supreme Court of Canada divided three ways, reproducing the divisions from the Reference re Assisted Human Reproduction Act (AHRA), decided a decade earlier. AHRA did not provide a majority statement of the rule for determining what constitutes a valid exercise of the section 91(27) criminal law power. Neither did the Reference. As a consequence, uncertainty in this area of the law persists. This article suggests arguments that, if adopted, would resolve this uncertainty. Part I summarizes the Reference, including the three sets of reasons written by Karakatsanis J., Moldaver J. and Kasirer J., respectively. Part II is organized around three spatial metaphors: the relationship of parts to the whole, breadth, and line-drawing. Part II begins by addressing an apparent disagreement in the federalism jurisprudence and in the Reference about the proper order for pith and substance analyses, when a part of an act is at issue. I argue that in some cases it is necessary to interpret an act as a whole before assessing its parts. Part II then turns to disagreements in the Court about the breadth of the criminal law power. I argue that Karakatsanis J.’s expansive interpretation places in jeopardy federalism principles and that Kasirer J.’s criticisms of that interpretation were justified. Part II concludes by examining a disagreement between Kasirer and Karakatsanis JJ. about whether the test for validity under the criminal law power should include a line-drawing exercise. I argue that this relatively narrow disagreement reveals a deeper debate about the appropriate role of courts in adjudicating disputes about the criminal law power. I conclude that Kasirer J.’s position flows from an understanding of the judicial role that is consistent with the broader federalism jurisprudence

Comeau and Constitutional Interpretation

R. v. Comeau raises questions about the place of originalism in the interpretation of a federalism provision of the Constitution Act, 1867, as well as related issues about the doctrine of stare decisis. Indeed, in anticipation of the Supreme Court’s hearing of the case, Léonid Sirota and Benjamin Oliphant wrote in the postscript to their 2017 article entitled “Originalist Reasoning in Canadian Constitutional Jurisprudence”: “[t]he Supreme Court’s decision … may well provide welcome clarifications as to [the] value and importance of originalist reasoning in Canada”. They argued that the case posed a question that represented “‘the biggest single challenge facing originalists’ — whether and how to ‘reconcil[e] originalism with precedent’” that deviates from the original meaning of a constitutional provision. When understood in these terms, Comeau engaged a broad academic debate about the relationship between living tree constitutionalism and originalism that is ongoing in Canada, the United States and elsewhere

Place- and age-responsive disaster risk reduction for Hong Kong: Collaborative Place Audit and Social Vulnerability Index for elders

published_or_final_versio

MicroRNA-145 Regulates Human Corneal Epithelial Differentiation

Epigenetic factors, such as microRNAs, are important regulators in the self-renewal and differentiation of stem cells and progenies. Here we investigated the microRNAs expressed in human limbal-peripheral corneal (LPC) epithelia containing corneal epithelial progenitor cells (CEPCs) and early transit amplifying cells, and their role in corneal epithelium.Human LPC epithelia was extracted for small RNAs or dissociated for CEPC culture. By Agilent Human microRNA Microarray V2 platform and GeneSpring GX11.0 analysis, we found differential expression of 18 microRNAs against central corneal (CC) epithelia, which were devoid of CEPCs. Among them, miR-184 was up-regulated in CC epithelia, similar to reported finding. Cluster miR-143/145 was expressed strongly in LPC but weakly in CC epithelia (P = 0.0004, Mann-Whitney U-test). This was validated by quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR). Locked nucleic acid-based in situ hybridization on corneal rim cryosections showed miR-143/145 presence localized to the parabasal cells of limbal epithelium but negligible in basal and superficial epithelia. With holoclone forming ability, CEPCs transfected with lentiviral plasmid containing mature miR-145 sequence gave rise to defective epithelium in organotypic culture and had increased cytokeratin-3/12 and connexin-43 expressions and decreased ABCG2 and p63 compared with cells transfected with scrambled sequences. Global gene expression was analyzed using Agilent Whole Human Genome Oligo Microarray and GeneSpring GX11.0. With a 5-fold difference compared to cells with scrambled sequences, miR-145 up-regulated 324 genes (containing genes for immune response) and down-regulated 277 genes (containing genes for epithelial development and stem cell maintenance). As validated by qPCR and luciferase reporter assay, our results showed miR-145 suppressed integrin β8 (ITGB8) expression in both human corneal epithelial cells and primary CEPCs.We found expression of miR-143/145 cluster in human corneal epithelium. Our results also showed that miR-145 regulated the corneal epithelium formation and maintenance of epithelial integrity, via ITGB8 targeting

Developmental pathway for potent V1V2-directed HIV-neutralizing antibodies.

CAPRISA, 2014.Antibodies capable of neutralizing HIV-1 often target variable regions 1 and 2 (V1V2) of the HIV-1 envelope, but the mechanism of their elicitation has been unclear. Here we define the developmental pathway by which such antibodies are generated and acquire the requisite molecular characteristics for neutralization. Twelve somatically related neutralizing antibodies (CAP256-VRC26.01-12) were isolated from donor CAP256 (from the Centre for the AIDS Programme of Research in South Africa (CAPRISA)); each antibody contained the protruding tyrosine-sulphated, anionic antigen-binding loop (complementarity-determining region (CDR) H3) characteristic of this category of antibodies. Their unmutated ancestor emerged between weeks 30-38 post-infection with a 35-residue CDR H3, and neutralized the virus that superinfected this individual 15 weeks after initial infection. Improved neutralization breadth and potency occurred by week 59 with modest affinity maturation, and was preceded by extensive diversification of the virus population. HIV-1 V1V2-directed neutralizing antibodies can thus develop relatively rapidly through initial selection of B cells with a long CDR H3, and limited subsequent somatic hypermutation. These data provide important insights relevant to HIV-1 vaccine development

Sustainability, Citizen Participation, and City Governance: Multidisciplinary Perspectives

https://commons.allard.ubc.ca/books/1370/thumbnail.jp

Doré, Proportionality and the Virtues of Judicial Craft

Although the Supreme Court of Canada’s reasoning in Doré makes it difficult to categorize in terms of the standard positions in the proportionality debates, it is open to challenges that are directed at the precision, coherence and accuracy of the reasoning. In the first part of the paper, the author articulates these challenges. In the second part, the author shows in detail how the reasoning in Doré departed from the standard academic debates about the concept of proportionality, but argues that when the Court engaged a cognate set of debates, its reasoning was unconvincing. In the author’s view, the Court could have profitably avoided these debates and focused instead on (1) crafting a decision that avoided the pitfalls identified in the first part of the paper; and (2) evaluating the consequences of its reasons. The paper begins by setting out the facts and reasons in Doré. The concerns raised in the first two parts of this paper address questions of judicial craft, and the paper concludes by suggesting that the reasons of the Court would have been stronger if they had focused on these questions and not on academic debates

Comeau and Constitutional Interpretation

R. v. Comeau raises questions about the place of originalism in the interpretation of a federalism provision of the Constitution Act, 1867, as well as related issues about the doctrine of stare decisis. Indeed, in anticipation of the Supreme Court’s hearing of the case, Léonid Sirota and Benjamin Oliphant wrote in the postscript to their 2017 article entitled “Originalist Reasoning in Canadian Constitutional Jurisprudence”: “[t]he Supreme Court’s decision … may well provide welcome clarifications as to [the] value and importance of originalist reasoning in Canada”. They argued that the case posed a question that represented “‘the biggest single challenge facing originalists’ — whether and how to ‘reconcil[e] originalism with precedent’” that deviates from the original meaning of a constitutional provision. When understood in these terms, Comeau engaged a broad academic debate about the relationship between living tree constitutionalism and originalism that is ongoing in Canada, the United States and elsewhere

Doré, Proportionality and the Virtues of Judicial Craft

Although the Supreme Court of Canada’s reasoning in Doré makes it difficult to categorize in terms of the standard positions in the proportionality debates, it is open to challenges that are directed at the precision, coherence and accuracy of the reasoning. In the first part of the paper, the author articulates these challenges. In the second part, the author shows in detail how the reasoning in Doré departed from the standard academic debates about the concept of proportionality, but argues that when the Court engaged a cognate set of debates, its reasoning was unconvincing. In the author’s view, the Court could have profitably avoided these debates and focused instead on (1) crafting a decision that avoided the pitfalls identified in the first part of the paper; and (2) evaluating the consequences of its reasons. The paper begins by setting out the facts and reasons in Doré. The concerns raised in the first two parts of this paper address questions of judicial craft, and the paper concludes by suggesting that the reasons of the Court would have been stronger if they had focused on these questions and not on academic debates