Conservatives, the Supreme Court, and the Constitution: Judicial-Government Relations, 2006-15

Three high profile government losses in the Supreme Court in late 2013 and early 2014, combined with the government’s response to those losses, generated a narrative of an especially fractious relationship between the Conservative government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the Court. This article analyzes this narrative more rigorously by going beyond a mere tallying of government wins and losses in the Court. Specifically, it examines Charter-based invalidations of federal legislation since 2006, three critical reference opinions rendered at the government’s own request, and two key judgments delivered in the spring of 2015 concerning aboriginal rights and the elimination of the long-gun registry. The article argues that the relationship between the Conservative government and the Court from 2006 to 2015 was much more complicated than the “fractious relationship” narrative would suggest. However, the Conservative government did adopt a more consistently confrontational approach in its legislative responses than its predecessors

The Day the Dialogue Died: A Comment on Sauve v. Canada

In Sauvé v. Canada (2002) a sharply divided Supreme Court of Canada nullified the inmate disenfranchisement provision of the Canada Elections Act. One of the more important aspects of the majority decision by Chief Justice McLachlin is her refusal to let the concept of dialogue take her down the path of judicial deference. This commentary examines the chief justice\u27s reasons for not taking this path and explores how these reasons reveal the limitations of the dialogue metaphor as originally articulated by Peter Hogg and Allison Bushell. The commentary concludes that any meaningful concept of legislative-judicial dialogue must recognize a coordinate legislative authority to interpret a constitution

The Day the Dialogue Died: A Comment on Sauve v. Canada

In Sauvé v. Canada (2002) a sharply divided Supreme Court of Canada nullified the inmate disenfranchisement provision of the Canada Elections Act. One of the more important aspects of the majority decision by Chief Justice McLachlin is her refusal to let the concept of dialogue take her down the path of judicial deference. This commentary examines the chief justice\u27s reasons for not taking this path and explores how these reasons reveal the limitations of the dialogue metaphor as originally articulated by Peter Hogg and Allison Bushell. The commentary concludes that any meaningful concept of legislative-judicial dialogue must recognize a coordinate legislative authority to interpret a constitution

The Last Line of Defence for Citizens : Litigating Private Health Insurance in Chaoulli v. Quebec

Litigating health care policy under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms has become an increasingly common phenomenon. The judicialization of health policy in this form raises important questions about the general phenomenon of legal mobilization. This article examines these questions in the context of Chaoulli v. Quebec (2005), in which the Supreme Court invalidated Quebec\u27s prohibition against private insurance for medical services provided through the public health care system. Among the questions this article explores are: How do such cases get into the judicial system? Under what conditions are such claims likely to be successful? What is the impact of such litigation on the broader policy environment

Reversal of Fortune: Litigating Health Care Reform in Auton v. British Columbia

In June 2004 the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Chaoulli v.Quebec (Attorney General) and Auton (Guardian ad litem of) v. British Columbia (Attorney General). at issue in Chaoulli was the constitutionality of legal restrictions on the private provision of health care; at issue in Auton was the constitutionality of British Columbia’s decision not to fund a specific treatment for autism within its public health care system. Chaoulli and Auton are the most visible manifestations of an increasingly common phenomenon: The use of rights-based litigation as an instrument of health care policy reform. This paper focuses on Auton as an example of legal mobilization. It explores three key questions about the phenomenon of planned, strategic litigation: How these cases enter the judicial system? Under what conditions are they likely to be successful? What is the impact of winning — or losing — on the broader policy environment? the paper concludes with some general comments on the use of litigation for health care policy reform

The Last Line of Defence for Citizens : Litigating Private Health Insurance in Chaoulli v. Quebec

Litigating health care policy under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms has become an increasingly common phenomenon. The judicialization of health policy in this form raises important questions about the general phenomenon of legal mobilization. This article examines these questions in the context of Chaoulli v. Quebec (2005), in which the Supreme Court invalidated Quebec\u27s prohibition against private insurance for medical services provided through the public health care system. Among the questions this article explores are: How do such cases get into the judicial system? Under what conditions are such claims likely to be successful? What is the impact of such litigation on the broader policy environment

Abiotic Input of Fixed Nitrogen by Bolide Impacts to Gale Crater During the Hesperian : Insights From the Mars Science Laboratory

We acknowledge the NASA Mars Science Laboratory Program, Centre National d'Études Spatiales, the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (PAPIIT IN109416, IN111619, and PAPIME PE103216), and the Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología de México (CONACyT 220626) for their support. We thank Fred Calef for constructing Figure 4 and appreciate the interest and support received from John P. Grotzinger and Joy A. Crisp throughout the Curiosity mission. The authors are grateful to the SAM and MSL teams for successful operation of the SAM instrument and the Curiosity rover. The data used in this paper are listed in the supporting information, figures, and references. SAM Data contained in this paper are publicly available through the NASA Planetary Data System at http://pds‐geosciences.wustl.edu/missions/msl/sam.htm. We would like to express gratitude to Pierre‐Yves Meslin from the Research Institute in Astrophysics and Planetology at Toulouse, France, and five anonymous reviewers whose comments/suggestions on earlier drafts helped improve and clarify this manuscript. The authors declare no conflicts of interests.Peer reviewedPublisher PD