October 2006
Monthly Archive
Canadian Constitutional Law #7: Watertight Compartments Monday, Oct 30 2006
1L and Canadian Constitutional Law and Constitutional Law and Erin Morgan and McGill Faculty of Law 3:57 am
Diverging from the Russell and Hodge cases we looked at last time, in the 1920s Lord Haldane made a series of judgements that viewed the powers given to the federal and provincial governments in s91 and s92 as “watertight compartments” where little or no overlap may exist. I disscuss the Snider case as an early example of this view. Then we’ll look at some of the discussion and criticism that occurred as a result of the stance taken by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
Toronto Electric Commissioners v Snider (1925)
AG Canada v AG Alberta (the insurance reference) (1916)
Montreal v Montreal Street Railway (1912)
Canadian Constitutional Law #6: Division of Powers Monday, Oct 30 2006
1L and Canadian Constitutional Law and Constitutional Law and Erin Morgan and McGill Faculty of Law 3:54 am
Does prohibition relate to national unity? Apparently so. We look at three early prohibition cases to exemplify how the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council developed two doctrines used to interpret constitutional division of power, the “pith and substance doctrine” and the “double aspect doctrine”. In the third case, the JCPC begins to reverse this trend and we see a movement towards exclusive catagories in division of power. This latter tendancy will be dealt with more in episode #7.
To see the text of Canada’s Constitution, visit the Department of Justice’s website.To see the CBC Canadian Heritage Minutes I love so much, visit http://www.histori.ca/minutes/
Russell v the Queen (1882)
Hodge v the Queen (1883)
AG Ontario v AG Canada (1896)
Canadian Constitutional Law #5: The Persons Case! Sunday, Oct 29 2006
1L and Canadian Constitutional Law and Constitutional Law and Erin Morgan and McGill Faculty of Law 5:44 am
The 1929 Persons Case (Edwards v AG Canada), is an extremely important and well-known court case in which Emily Murphy (as one of the famous five) fought all the way to London to gain recognition that the words “qualified persons” in the 1867 Constitution Act include women, thus allowing us to sit in the senate. If you watched CBC in the 90s, you may remember this from yet another important Heritage Moment!
In this podcast, we talk about the role of the judiciary in Canada, the Person’s Case, and the conceptualization of the constitution as a “living tree”.
The Persons Case (Edwards v AG Canada), 1929
Property Law #38: Regulatory Takings and Nuisance II Monday, Oct 23 2006
1L and Neil Wehneman and Property Law and University of Cincinnati College of Law 1:29 am
In our last episode for Property, we look a bit more at the question of regulation and the “denominator problem”, as well as looking at a third categorical rule. This rule is that regulations that de-value property into inutility are always a taking, unless justified by background principles of common law nuisance.
Penn Central Transportation Company v. City of New York
Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council
Property Law #37: Regulatory Takings and Nuisance I Monday, Oct 23 2006
1L and Neil Wehneman and Property Law and University of Cincinnati College of Law 1:28 am
Sometimes what appears to be a normal regulation threatens to regulate property into valueless inutility. How far is too far, triggering a taking? And can nuisances be regulated out of existence without paying just compensation?
Hadacheck v. Sebastian
Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon
Property Law #36: Just Compensation and Physical Invasions Monday, Oct 23 2006
1L and Neil Wehneman and Property Law and University of Cincinnati College of Law 1:26 am
In this episode we discuss (albeit briefly) some of the questions to keep in mind when trying to determine what “just compensation” is or should be. We will also begin looking at the question of when has a taking actually taken place, examining a categorical rule involving permanent physical occupations.
Riggs v. Township of Long Beach
Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp.
Property Law #35: Takings and Public Use Monday, Oct 23 2006
1L and Neil Wehneman and Property Law and University of Cincinnati College of Law 1:24 am
We begin our final topic in this feed: Takings. We’ll define briefly what a taking is, what textual limits the 5th Amendment places on these takings, and try to define what a “public use” is.
Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff
Kelo v. City of New London
Property Law #34: Zoning IV Monday, Oct 23 2006
1L and Neil Wehneman and Property Law and University of Cincinnati College of Law 1:22 am
In our final episode on zoning, we discuss the concept of spot zoning, or where a single area (allegedly) has its zoning changed for an improper purpose.
State v. City of Rochester
Property Law #33: Zoning III Monday, Oct 23 2006
1L and Neil Wehneman and Property Law and University of Cincinnati College of Law 1:20 am
In our third episode on zoning, we move to variances and special exceptions. Variances are when the zoning code is not strictly applied to avoid undue hardship, while a special exception is when a use is generally allowable, but requires sign-off from the zoning board.
Commons v. Westwood Zoning Board of Adjustment
Cope v. Inhabitants of the Town of Brunswick
Property Law #32: Zoning II Monday, Oct 23 2006
1L and Neil Wehneman and Property Law and University of Cincinnati College of Law 1:18 am
We continue our discussion of zoning by focusing on the noncomforming use. A noncomforming use is one that was legal before a zoning ordinance took effect, but is now outside of the appropriate zone. The concept of amortization (giving a deadline for shutting down the noncomforming use, after reasonable recoupment of investment) is also discussed.
PA Northwestern Distributers, Inc. v. Zoning Hearing Board