Suchergebnisse

Assessments of "reasonableness" are central to adjudicating claims under several Charter rights and the section 1 "reasonable limits" clause. By comparing Supreme Court of Canada rulings to facta submitted by the Attorney General of Canada to the Court, this article examines the federal government's success under Prime Minister Harper at persuading the Supreme Court of Canada that its Charter infringements in the area of criminal justice policy are reasonable, and when they fail to do so, on what grounds. The evidence reveals that the Conservative government adopted a consistently defensive posture in court, never conceding that a law was unreasonable, and that this government was almost never able to defend an impugned criminal justice law under section 1. While several of those losses concerned pre-Harper era laws, the Court did reject several Conservative criminal justice policies, most notably some mandatory minimum sentencing laws. The article's novel systematic analysis also shows that the Court sometimes rejected the federal government's characterization of the legislative objective.

Abstract.This article analyzes the federal government's concessions before the Supreme Court of Canada that its own laws are unconstitutional under the Charter of Rights, marking the first time that concessions have been analyzed empirically in Canada. Using data from 1984–2004, the author finds that full concessions of unconstitutionality are exceptionally rare but that partial concessions are not uncommon. There is weak support for the hypothesis that governments are more willing to concede laws passed by previous governments of a different party, but, on the whole, the federal government appears committed to defending its laws in court. The author explores the implications of this for the relationship between the judiciary and the executive, including judicial activism, Charter dialogue and government use of the courts to advance policy goals.Résumé.Cet article analyse les concessions du gouvernement fédéral devant la Cour suprême du Canada que ses propres lois violent laCharte canadienne des droits et libertés. Il s'agit, en fait, de la première analyse empirique de ces concessions au Canada. S'appuyant sur des données des années 1984 à 2004, l'auteur constate que les concessions complètes d'inconstitutionnalité sont exceptionnellement rares, mais que les concessions partielles ne sont pas inhabituelles. On donne peu d'appui à l'hypothèse que les gouvernements sont plus disposés à concéder les lois passées par des gouvernements précédents représentant un autre parti, et, dans l'ensemble, le gouvernement fédéral semble être engagé à défendre ses lois devant les cours. L'auteur explore l'incidence de cette situation sur les relations entre le pouvoir judiciaire et le pouvoir exécutif, abordant, entre autres, la question de l'activisme judiciaire, du dialogue sur la Charte et de l'utilisation des tribunaux par le gouvernement pour promouvoir certaines politiques.

The inter–institutional dynamics between
courts and elected governments under the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms have recently, and widely, been characterized as a "dialogue"
over constitutional meaning. This article seeks to expand the systematic
analysis of "dialogue" to lower courts of appeal, using Canadian federal
government responses as a case study. In the process, the article
clarifies the hotly debated operational definition of this metaphor, and
develops two methodological innovations to provide a comprehensive
measure of dialogue. The article's findings suggest that there is
more dialogue with lower courts than with the Supreme Court of Canada.
However, the evidence indicates that dialogue in the form of government
appeals to higher courts–which explicitly signal the
government's disagreement with the lower court–is as
prevalent as legislative sequels, and the dominant form following
judicial amendment.

Abstract.The federal government's power to appoint judges has come under increased scrutiny in recent years. While many suggest that partisan affiliation, gender and professional background may be influencing the Canadian appointment process, and some have called into question the fairness of such influences, little attention has been directed at determining whether these characteristics influence the outcome of cases. This paper studies decisions made by the Ontario Court of Appeal between 1990 and 2003 and uses a unique measure of partisan affiliation in an attempt to answer the question: do characteristics which play a role in the appointment process influence judicial decision making.Résumé.Ces dernières années ont vu une augmentation de l'attention donné à l'autorité du gouvernement fédéral en ce qui concerne la nomination judiciaire. Il y en a plusieurs qui suggèrent que l'affiliation partisan, le sexe, et l'expérience professionnelle des candidats judiciaires sont tous des caractéristiques qui peuvent influencer la procédure de nomination. Encore d'autres ont remis en question l'équité d'un choix basé sur ces influences. Cependant, la question qui n'a pas reçu beaucoup d'attention jusqu'à maintenant est si ces caractéristiques influencent le résultat des affaires juridiques. L'article qui suit examine les décisions rendu par le Cour d'appel de l'Ontario entre les années 1990 et 2003, employant une mesure unique d'affiliation partisan, avec le but de répondre à la question : Est-ce que les caractéristiques qui peuvent jouer un rôle dans la procédure de nomination influencent les décisions judiciaires?

The purpose of this article is to determine whether degenerative politics, a central proposition of democratic policy design theory or social constructivism, has been evident in Canadian youth criminal justice policy. Using a synchronic and diachronic case study design, the article conducts a rigorous content analysis of the legislative debates leading to theYoung Offenders Actin 1982 and theYouth Criminal Justice Actin 2002. Policy makers' social constructions of violent and nonviolent young offenders are measured, along with the benefit/burden content of the legislation, to determine whether young offenders have been caught in the downward spiral of degenerative politics. It finds evidence of degenerative politics for violent young offenders but not for nonviolent young offenders and explores some of the reasons for this divergence.Related ArticlesDauda,Carol L.2010. "."Politics & Policy38():1159‐1185.http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1747-1346.2012.00394.x/fullDyck,Joshua J., andAnnikaHagley.2012. "."Politics & Policy40():195‐220.http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1747-1346.2012.00346.x/fullTraut,Carol A., andCraig F.Emmert.2003. "."Politics & Policy31():296‐312.http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1747-1346.2003.tb00150.x/fullRelated Media.2013. "Youth Criminal Justice in Action."https://www.youtube.com/watch?v = KdZacGdgJrs.2015. "Public Policy Theory and Democracy."http://www.ippapublicpolicy.org/teaching-ressource/public-policy-theory-and-democracy/9

Abstract. Studies of federal judicial appointments made before 1988 discovered significant partisan ties between judicial appointees and the governments appointing them. In 1988, in response to criticism of these "patronage appointments," the Mulroney government introduced screening committees to the process. This article explores the impact of these committees. Using information gained from surveys of legal elites, we trace the minor and major political connections of federal judicial appointees from 1989 to 2003 in order to determine whether patronage has continued despite the reform to the process. We discover that political connections continued to play an important role in who was selected for a judicial appointment. However, these connections were not quite as common as those found before 1988, and the new process does appear to have prevented the politically motivated appointment of completely unqualified candidates. Interestingly, our findings also suggest that the impact of patronage varies by region and interacts with other, newer influences, in particular, concerns for group representation on the bench. The paper concludes by briefly discussing these results in the context of the relationship between judicial selection and politics with a comparative perspective.Résumé. Les études sur les nominations judiciaires fédérales réalisées avant 1988 ont découvert des liens partisans étroits entre les juges nommés à la cour et les gouvernements les nommant. En 1988, en réponse aux critiques sur le favoritisme entourant les nominations, le gouvernement Mulroney a introduit des comités d'évaluation dans le processus. Cet article explore l'impact de ces comités. En utilisant de l'information recueillie lors de sondages menés auprès de la communauté légale, nous retraçons les connexions politiques mineures et majeures des attributaires judiciaires fédéraux de 1989 à 2003 en vue de déterminer si le favoritisme a persisté malgré la réforme du système. Nous découvrons que les connexions politiques continuent à jouer un rôle important dans la sélection des juges. Toutefois, ces connexions ne sont pas aussi importantes que celles qu'on a identifiées avant 1988 et le nouveau processus semble avoir réussi à prévenir les nominations partisanes de candidats entièrement non qualifiés. Les résultats de notre recherche suggèrent également que l'effet du favoritisme varie par région et dépend aussi d'autres facteurs plus nouveaux, en particulier le souci de représentation de certains groupes au sein de la magistrature. L'article conclut en discutant brièvement ces résultats dans le contexte de la relation entre la sélection judiciaire et la politique dans une perspective comparative.

This article uses data from the 2000 Canadian Election Studyto examine a variety of possible explanations for the gender gap in support for the newright. The authors find structural and situational explanations to be of little help in accounting for the gap. What matters are values and beliefs. The gender gap in support for Canada's new right party reflects differences in views about the appropriate role of the state, lawand order, and traditional moral values. It also appears to reflect differences in the salience of politics in men's andwomen's lives. When all of these attitudinal factors are taken into account, the gender gap ceases to be significant. The implications of the findings are considered in light of comparative analyses of gender gaps in vote choice and support for radical right-wing populist political parties in Western Europe.