The Supreme Court\u27s Understanding of the Democratic Self-Government, Advancement of Truth and Knowledge and Individual Self-Realization Rationales for Protecting Freedom of Expression: Part I - Taking Stock

he Supreme Court of Canada has explained Canada\u27s commitment to freedom of expression in section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms on the basis of the importance Canadians attach to three deeper societal values: 1) democratic self-government, 2) the advancement of truth and knowledge; and 3) individual self-realization. These values have, however, come to do more than provide the philosophical rationales for providing constitutional protection to freedom of expression in Canada. They have also been given important doctrinal roles, pursuant to which they assist the Court to resolve a broad range of cases in which freedom of expression is invoked. The purpose of this paper is to extract from the body of jurisprudence in which the values have played these doctrinal roles the meanings the Court has given each of them. A critical assessment of those meanings will be provided in a separate paper.

Safeguarding Provincial Autonomy from the Supreme Court\u27s New Federal Paramountcy Doctrine: A Constructive Role for the Intention to Cover the Field Test?

This paper reviews and critiques the Supreme Court of Canada\u27s consideration of the constitutional law doctrine of federal paramountcy, in particular its willingness to broaden the circumstances in which the doctrine applies. Preservation of a high degree of provincial autonomy has been a consistent theme of federalism jurisprudence in Canada. Since taking over from the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council as the court of last resort for Canada, the Supreme Court has allowed federal and provincial legislation to overlap in a broad range of different areas. The Court\u27s recent approach to the paramountcy doctrine could therefore potentially lead to significant inroads into provincial autonomy. This paper has four objectives: (1) to trace the evolution of the paramountcy doctrine from 1982 to 2007; (2) to summarize the Court\u27s current extended understanding of the paramountcy doctrine\u27s reach and its practical and theoretical implications; (3) to provide critical scrutiny of that understanding from the perspectives of constitutional principle and constitutional policy; and (4) to suggest a new way of thinking about the doctrine, which accepts the validity of its recent extension, but attempts to mitigate the potential damage that the extension may cause to provincial autonomy

Interjurisdictional Immunity after Canadian Western Bank and Lafarge Canada Inc.: The Supreme Court Muddies the Doctrinal Waters - Again

The doctrine of interjurisdictional immunity holds that valid, generally worded legislation enacted by one order of government cannot constitutionally be applied in contexts that can be said to fall within a core area of the other order of government’s legislative jurisdiction. After years of seemingly settled law, the Supreme Court of Canada reassessed the doctrine in its decisions in Canadian Western Bank v. Albert (CWB) and in British Columbia (Attorney General) v. Lafarge Canada Inc. (Lafarge) where the doctrine was invoked by federally regulated undertakings (i.e., banks and a port authority) wanting to avoid the application of valid provincial legislation. The purposes of this paper are to provide to provide a detailed overview of the origins and evolution of the doctrine of interjurisdictional immunity and a careful scrutiny of the doctrine’s place in the evolving law of Canadian federalism. Part II of the paper looks at the legal test used in early cases involving federally regulated undertakings. Part III summarizes the Court’s reassessment of the doctrine in both CWB and Lafarge. Part IV offers critical analysis of the Court’s reassessment of the doctrine

Regulating Greenhouse Gases in Canada: Constitutional and Policy Dimensions

Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions have risen dramatically since the 1997 negotiation of the Kyoto Protocol, and that rise has continued through Canada’s 2002 ratification of the Protocol. Along with economic dislocation, constitutional barriers to regulation have sometimes been cited as the reason for caution in regulating greenhouse gases. This article critically evaluates the constitutional arguments and examines the policy considerations surrounding various regulatory instruments that might be used to reduce greenhouse gases. We conclude that the Canadian constitution does not present any significant barriers to federal or provincial regulation and that policy considerations strongly favour the use of two instruments: a federal carbon tax to impose a marginal cost on emissions and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act to review federal projects that may increase greenhouse gases.Les émissions de gaz à effet de serre du Canada ont augmenté dramatiquement depuis les négociations du Protocole de Kyoto en 1997. Cette augmentation a continué même subséquemment à la ratification du Protocole par le Canada en 2002. En plus de la dislocation économique, les barrières constitutionnelles à la réglementation ont parfois été citées comme justification à la prudence dans la réglementation des gaz à effet de serre. Cet article évalue de manière critique les arguments constitutionnels et examine les considérations de politiques entourant les différents instruments réglementaires qui pourraient être utilisés pour réduire les gaz à effet de serre. Nous concluons que la constitution canadienne ne présente pas de barrière significative à la réglementation fédérale ou provinciale et que les considérations de politiques favorisent fortement l’utilisation de deux instruments, soit une taxe fédérale sur le carbone pour imposer un coût marginal aux émissions et la Loi canadienne sur l’évaluation environnementale pour évaluer les projets fédéraux qui pourraient augmenter les gaz à effet de serre

Greenhouse Gas Regulation in Canada: Constitutional and Policy Dimensions

Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions have risen dramatically since the 1997 negotiation of the Kyoto Protocol, and that rise has continued through Canada’s 2002 ratification of the Protocol. Along with economic dislocation, constitutional barriers to regulation have sometimes been cited as the reason for caution in regulating greenhouse gases. This article critically evaluates the constitutional arguments and examines the policy considerations surrounding various regulatory instruments that might be used to reduce greenhouse gases. We conclude that the Canadian constitution does not present any significant barriers to federal or provincial regulation and that policy considerations strongly favour the use of two instruments: a federal carbon tax to impose a marginal cost on emissions and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act to review federal projects that may increase greenhouse gases

Regulating Greenhouse Gases in Canada: Constitutional and Policy Dimensions

Canada\u27s greenhouse gas emissions have risen dramatically since the 1997 negotiation of the Kyoto Protocol to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and that rise has continued through Canada\u27s 2002 ratification of the Protocol. Constitutional barriers to regulation have sometimes been cited as the reason for caution in regulating greenhouse gases, as well as economic dislocation. This article critically evaluates the constitutional arguments, and examines the policy considerations of various regulatory instruments that might be used to reduce greenhouse gases. We conclude that the Canadian Constitution does not present any significant barriers to federal or provincial regulation, and that policy considerations strongly favour the use of two instruments: a federal carbon tax and use of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act to review federal projects that may increase greenhouse gases

Greenhouse Gas Regulation in Canada: Constitutional and Policy Dimensions

Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions have risen dramatically since the 1997 negotiation of the Kyoto Protocol, and that rise has continued through Canada’s 2002 ratification of the Protocol. Along with economic dislocation, constitutional barriers to regulation have sometimes been cited as the reason for caution in regulating greenhouse gases. This article critically evaluates the constitutional arguments and examines the policy considerations surrounding various regulatory instruments that might be used to reduce greenhouse gases. We conclude that the Canadian constitution does not present any significant barriers to federal or provincial regulation and that policy considerations strongly favour the use of two instruments: a federal carbon tax to impose a marginal cost on emissions and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act to review federal projects that may increase greenhouse gases

Novel B(Ar')2(Ar'') hetero-tri(aryl)boranes: a systematic study of Lewis acidity

A series of homo- and hetero-tri(aryl)boranes incorporating pentafluorophenyl, 3,5-bis(trifluoromethyl)phenyl, and pentachlorophenyl groups, four of which are novel species, have been studied as the acidic component of frustrated Lewis pairs for the heterolytic cleavage of H2. Under mild conditions eight of these will cleave H2; the rate of cleavage depending on both the electrophilicity of the borane and the steric bulk around the boron atom. Electrochemical studies allow comparisons of the electrophilicity with spectroscopic measurements of Lewis acidity for different series of boranes. Discrepancies in the correlation between these two types of measurements, combined with structural characterisation of each borane, reveal that the twist of the aryl rings with respect to the boron-centred trigonal plane is significant from both a steric and electronic perspective, and is an important consideration in the design of tri(aryl)boranes as Lewis acids