Search

On May 25 - 26, 2010, Université Laval, the University of Windsor Faculty of Law and the University of Louisville Brandeis School of Law, hosted the Sixth Administrative Law Discussion Forum in Quebec City, Canada.The forum provided an opportunity for thoughtful exchange among administrative law academics on contemporary issues that cut across national borders. The discussions reflected in this collection of papers touch on a variety of major administrative law themes. In addition, they examine local aspects of problems that transcend regional and national borders, and show connections and preoccupations between jurisdictions and indeed between countries.

In December 2009, the Ontario Legislative Assembly enacted the Adjudicative Tribunals Accountability, Governance and Appointments Act, 2009 (ATAGAA). This new legislation offers a unique approach to ensuring that adjudicative tribunals in the province are transparent, accountable and efficient in their operations while preserving their decision-making independence. The statute presents an approach that the author has termed "collaborative governance" as it aims to bring the executive branch of government and the tribunals together in reaching effective and accountable means of internal governance. The author argues, however, that the approach taken by the statute does not address many of the contemporary concerns about accountability that are experienced by tribunals on the ground. She argues further that the legislation is inconsistent in its underlying commitment to the concept of accountability as it does not take into account the importance of accountability on the part of the executive to tribunals. Finally, the approach taken by the legislation must be channelled properly to avoid disintegrating from a collaborative governance approach to one of command and control.

Hate mongers have found it strategically useful to present themselves as defenders of free speech. The shift from advocate of hate to defender of free speech fits well with the hate monger's self-understanding as a victim of state oppression and a defender of Western values against multiculturalism. More often, though, the opposition to hate speech regulation has a principled basis. There are many committed civil libertarians who regard hate speech as odious but are nevertheless prepared to defend the right of others to engage in it. Their opposition to the restriction of hate speech rests on a commitment to individual liberty sand a concern about the reach of state power. While I think the "civil libertarian" position is mistaken, it is not without merit. What is perplexing though is the extraordinary energy that these advocates of free speech put into the fight against hate speech regulation. They seem convinced that the integrity of the free speech edifice depends on holding the line here. Yet they seem indifferent to the more significant ways in which freedom of expression is being eroded in Western democracies. Whether by design or not, the obsessive opposition to hate speech regulation diverts our attention away from more fundamental free speech issues concerning the character and structure of public disclosure, and more particularly the domination of public disclosure by commercial messages and the advertising form. But, of course, these are not issues that can be addressed by the courts, except in indirect ways, and that may partly explain the lack of attention they receive.

Increased access to justice is a key objective of class proceedings. Yet there is no consensus on what the term means in the class action context. This paper engages the access to justice paradigm by exploring the settlement approval phase of a class action. In Part A, the author offers a robust definition of access to justice that includes considerations of substantive justice. In Part B, the prevailing approach to the assessment of the fairness of a settlement is critiqued. Two common criteria in the fairness analysis, the presumption of fairness and a lack of objectors, are argued to be unreliable determinants of a just result. In Part C, the author evaluates a particular form of settlement - a cy pres distribution of settlement proceeds to charities. Such settlements, the author concludes, illustrate why current standards for settlement approval must be revisited in order to promote more meaningful access to justice.

If custody and access disputes are a deck of cards, the trump suit is the best interests of the child. When separating parents litigate about how and with whom their child should live, findings about what’s best for the child are meant to sweep away the parents’ interests and rights-claims. This principle is uncontroversial, but applying it is difficult. What parenting arrangements are best for children, and how successful is the legal system in putting these arrangements in place?

“Whose Best Interests?” compares the law of custody and access disputes with the procedure used to resolve them, and argues that there is a fundamental contradiction between these two things. The former focuses on the interests of the children involved to the exclusion of all else. The latter, however, is essentially designed to protect the best interests of the adult parties to the dispute. The article concludes by considering two alternative reforms which might resolve this contradiction.

The study of the law of remedies has found a place in the curriculum of many common law law schools. This has generated debate on whether the law of remedies exists as a distinct body of law governed by its own systematic structures and principles, and which can comfortably take its place beside other substantive private law subjects. The author argues that it can, and then suggests a number of important areas of law in which debate on appropriate remedial response is central to the articulation of the particular interest which has been violated. The author suggests that there is much useful work to engage the energies of scholars of the law of remedies.

There has been very little critical and feminist commentary in Canada on the admissibility of prior sexual misconduct evidence as similar fact evidence in sexual assault cases. The lack of critical attention to this area of evidence law is surprising given that the similar fact evidence rule, like other rules of evidence, serves as a site for gender, race, and sexual orientation bias.

This book addresses multiple aspects of the conflict between Georgia and Russia over the breakaway region of South Ossetia in August 2008, including the use of force, human rights, transnational litigation and international law 'rhetoric'. The particulars of the conflict are explored alongside their wider implications for international order.

While her name echoes across the pages of legal and constitutional history, we also remember the informal [Trish]. At home, that warm and welcoming place, where the door was always open, and the only rule was make yourself at home. Where her splendid children, Brandon, Mike, Kate and Jack displayed their achievements on the wall of honour, and brought their friends to hang out, share Trish's delicious cooking, and strategize over upcoming sports competitions, and projects. Where other children became her children and where they found a loving, safe and supportive home. Where Trish's favourite coffee was always on offer. We remember her on the road, meeting her on the road, travelling with other women and their children, putting human rights into action in Saskatchewan prisons, seeking justice, or watching with great pride and enormous knowledge the kids' activities at powwows, hockey and lacrosse arenas, soccer fields, or concert halls. We remember her scheming and "schmoking," laughing, and cooking up new ways to thwart the colonizer or defeat the machinations of injustice. This is not to say that Trish avoided the world of policy-making. To the contrary. A key member of the Task Force on Federally Sentenced Women in the early 1 990s, she ensured that the voices of Indigenous women were central to the process. Her guidance strongly influenced the Task Force final report and the subsequent establishment of the Okimaw Ohci Healing Lodge for Aboriginal women. Trish was a vital expert witness at the Commission of Inquiry into Certain Events at the Prison for Women in Kingston (the Arbour Commission), which investigated the unlawful stripping and shackling of women, imposition on women of lengthy segregation, and their involuntary movement to a men's prison. Nor did her contribution end with the completion of the Task Force and Commission. Trish did not hesitate to bring attention to government shortcomings in realizing the vision of the Task Force and the Arbour inquiry. She was one of the staunchest critics of Correctional Services' divergence from the original inspiration for the Healing Lodge. She worked with the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies and was a trusted advisor and friend to Kim Pate, when they launched a complaint to the Canadian Human Rights Commission against the Government of Canada on behalf of all women serving two years or more. Supported by 27 national and international women's, Aboriginal, and social justice groups, the complaint called for a systemic review and remedy for the discriminatory treatment of women in prisons and the criminal justice system generally.

On 7 August 2008, long-standing tensions in the Caucasus region came to a head when President Mikheil Saakashvili of Georgia ordered troops into the de facto independent region of South Ossetia with a view to reestablishing Georgian sovereignty. This intervention, which included the shelling and occupation of the South Ossetian capital, Tskhinvali, was the culmination of a number of more minor military exchanges over the proceeding months. South Ossetia’s sponsor, the Russian Federation, responded swiftly to the Georgian action, with a large-scale military intervention into the state of Georgia. This use of force ultimately went beyond the boundaries of the South Ossetia region, both into the comparable breakaway region of Abkhazia and further into ‘Georgia proper’.