Search

In Mouvement laique v Saguenay the Supreme Court of Canada held that the recitation of a prayer at the opening of a municipal council’s public meeting breached ‘the state’s duty of neutrality’ in matters of religion. The comment discusses some of the difficulties or challenges raised by the Court's commitment to religious neutrality.

Derived from Canadian Divorce Law & Practice, the commentary of this work comprehensively covers the developing body of case law pertaining to spousal support in Canada, and includes the full text of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines and relevant sections of the Divorce Act. The chapters dedicated to spousal support under the Divorce Act include: Jurisdiction Parties Interim and Permanent Support Terms and Conditions Determination of Income. The chapters dedicated to the new Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines (SSAG) focus upon the following: the support formulas for spouses with child(ren) and for those without them; using the ranges; ceilings and floors; exceptions; variation and review of awards; retroactive support; and judicial reception of the SSAG.

By: Joshua-Sealy Harrington PDF Version: Can the Homeless Find Shelter in the Courts? Case Commented On: Tanudjaja v Canada (Attorney General), 2014 ONCA 852 Late in 2014, the Ontario Court of Appe…

English Abstract: This volume of the Oñati Socio-legal Series consists of revised versions of 15 of the 20 papers presented at a workshop hosted by the Oñati International Institute for the Sociology of Law (IISL) in May 2013. The workshop took its theme from Stéphane Hessel’s cri de coeur, Indignez-vous! and the protest movements it inspired, which we saw as protests against the social inequality that necessarily follows from economic inequality and other power imbalances. This message continues to resonate. In 2015, for example, Oxfam International’s research paper entitled “Wealth: Having it all and wanting more” concludes that by 2016, the world’s richest 1% will have more of the world’s wealth than all of the remaining 99% of people. And a Canadian observer decries the effect of this – which he labels “trickle-down meanness” – on the socio-political fabric of a country.

English Abstract: Expropriation – the non-consensual taking of privately-owned property by the state in exchange for the payment of compensation – is a widely-used tool of land use planning in Canada as it is in many other states. While in principle all privately-held properties are equally susceptible to expropriation in Canada, legal frameworks on expropriation fail to guard against the possibility that less-wealthy neighbourhoods become more susceptible to expropriation than more wealthy ones (the 99% versus the 1% to put it in the terms used by the Occupy movement of the early part of this decade). The paper examines existing legal frameworks as well as a number of historical expropriation projects in Canada to depict how and why this may come to pass. It does so with a comparative eye turned towards the United States. The paper concludes with several recommendations for strengthening expropriation law frameworks in Canada to ensure that the property of the less-wealthy is as well protected as those properties in higher-income neighbourhoods.

I use the United Nations Panel of Experts on Accountability in Sri Lanka’s recommendation to create an international mechanism and recent demands for justice as a springboard to argue that the creation of a new ad hoc international or hybrid criminal tribunal for Sri Lanka may not produce the expected results of prosecuting those responsible for mass human rights violations. I argue that such an initiative will not heal the ruptures and cleavages among the different ethnic communities in Sri Lanka. By teasing out the political nature of international criminal law and the embedded nature of the history of international law, this chapter suggests that the creation of an international institution may not bring to justice the divergent perpetrators of war crimes. Rather, the politics of international institutions and the history of international law may allow for ‘regulatory capture’ and the continuing rise of international experts as seen through the illustrative history of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda.

In what follows I make five points that are potential ‘hot spots’, or are implications that flow from the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Bhasin v. Hrynew 2014 SCC 71 [hereafter Bhasin]. They are presented in no particular order, but, in making these comments I am reminded of the comment: “He who lives by the crystal ball soon learns to eat ground glass” (Edgar R. Fiedler in The Three Rs of Economic Forecasting-Irrational, Irrelevant and Irreverent).

Criminalization of sexual violence against women in intimate relationships must form a central part of the human rights agenda for achieving gender equality. According to a study by the United Nations Secretary-General, “[t]he most common form of violence experienced by women globally is intimate partner violence” including “a range of sexually, psychologically and physically coercive acts.” The World Health Organization reports that nearly one in four women in some countries may experience sexual violence perpetrated against them by an intimate partner. Other research suggests that approximately 40% of all assaulted women are forced into sex at one time or another by their male partners.

Ending the marital rape exemption in criminal law is a demand for legal equality and autonomy for women, rights that are enshrined in international human rights law. Drawing on international human rights law as a source of authority for challenging the marital rape exception in criminal law allows feminist and other social justice organizations, within their specific national and local contexts, to seek greater state action and accountability toward ending this form of violence against women and this violation of women’s human rights. In this reply, we challenge the arguments in the symposium that oppose or caution against criminalizing sexual violence in intimate relationships as a necessary legal strategy, and that refute our view that ending the marital rape exemption is required by international human rights law.

This volume of the Oñati Socio-legal Series consists of revised versions of 15 of the 20 papers presented at a workshop hosted by the Oñati International Institute for the Sociology of Law (IISL) in May 2013. The workshop took its theme from Stéphane Hessel’s cri de coeur, Indignez-vous! and the protest movements it inspired, which we saw as protests against the social inequality that necessarily follows from economic inequality and other power imbalances. This message continues to resonate. In 2015, for example, Oxfam International’s research paper entitled “Wealth: Having it all and wanting more” concludes that by 2016, the world’s richest 1% will have more of the world’s wealth than all of the remaining 99% of people. And a Canadian observer decries the effect of this – which he labels “trickle-down meanness” – on the socio-political fabric of a country.Because of the breadth of the workshop theme and the diversity of its participants – which included a critical mass of doctrinal legal scholars in the mix – participants were asked to choose topics which 1) raised their indignation, 2) reflected economic inequality, 3) led to a violation of socio-economic rights, and 4) involved a possible role for the law (or public policy) either in causing the violation or in providing a solution to it (or both). The papers in this volume show that the participants responded enthusiastically to this request. Este número de la revista Oñati Socio-legal Series recoge las versiones revisadas de 15 de las 20 ponencias que se presentaron en el workshop celebrado en el Instituto Internacional de Sociología Jurídica de Oñati (IISJ), en mayo de 2013. El tema del workshop giró alrededor del lema de Stéphane Hessel, Indignez-vous! y los movimientos de protesta que inspiró, que percibimos como protestas contra la desigualdad social que resulta inevitablemente de la desigualdad económica y otros desequilibrios de poder. Este mensaje sigue resonando. En 2015, por ejemplo, una investigación de Oxfam Internacional titulada “Wealth: Having it all and wanting more” (Riqueza: Tenerlo todo y querer más), concluye que en 2016, el 1% de la población mundial poseerá más riqueza que el 99% restante. Y un observador canadiense condena sus consecuencias -que él denomina “goteo de mezquindad”- en el tejido socio-político de un país. Debido a la amplitud del tema del workshop y la diversidad de sus participantes -que incluía una masa crítica de expertos en doctrinas legales- se pidió a los participantes que eligieran temas que 1) les indignaran, 2) reflejasen desigualdad económica, 3), diesen lugar a una violación de los derechos socioeconómicos, y 4) que implicasen un posible papel del derecho (o políticas públicas) tanto por causar el daño u ofrecer una solución al problema (o ambos). Los artículos de este volumen demuestran que los participantes respondieron con entusiasmo a esta solicitud. DOWNLOAD THIS PAPER FROM SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2572253