February 2007
Monthly Archive
Constitutional Law (Samuel) #2: Mootness Wednesday, Feb 21 2007
Constitutional Law and Constitutional Law I and Iowa State University and Samuel Berbano 11:49 pm
In Samuel Berbano’s second of a series of podcasts on justiciability doctrines, we’ll analyze the question of Mootness as it relates to Federal Article III courts. These courts are bound to take only cases which commentators call a “case or controversy” requirement. This requirement exists to preserve the integrity of the adversarial system.
The second doctrine addressed is mootness. An issue that Federal courts declare moot is not justiciable and cannot be decided. An issue becomes moot when, in the course of litigation, events transpire which deprive one or both parties of a stake in the case. Similar to playing the card game of Poker, one can’t hope to play a hand if (1) they don’t have money in the pot and a personal stake in the outcome and (2) they’ve folded their hand and don’t want to keep playing.
The DeFunis case shows how an issue can become moot in the course of litigation. Roe, our second case, shows a case that would normally be considered moot, but falls under one of the four exceptions to the mootness doctrine:
1) “Continuing Harm to Plaintiff”
2) “Voluntary Cessation”
3) “Capable of Repetition, But Evading Review”
4) Class Action Lawsuits
DeFunis v. Odegaard, 416 U.S. 312 (1974)
Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)
Canadian Constitutional Law #23: Approaches to Charter Interpretation Saturday, Feb 10 2007
1L and Canadian Constitutional Law and Constitutional Law and Erin Morgan and McGill Faculty of Law 3:13 pm
Well, it’s February and we made it to the Charter (if I only I could make it to spring break…) In this podcast we’ll talk about the advent of the Charter and some approaches the court has developed for its interpretation. Interpreting a constitutional document is different from regular statute interpretation, so Dickson J and Wilson J have taken on the task of inventing terms for the work they do, which we shall then memorize and repeat on exams. Good times.
Hunter v Southam (1984)
R v. Big M Drug Mart (1985)
Reference re sec 92(2) of Motor Vehicles Act (1985)
R v Therens (1985)
R v Keegstra (1990)
Reference re Public Service Employee Relations Act (Alta) (1987)
Edmonton Journal v Alberta (AG) (1989)
Canadian Constitutional Law #22: Implied (and Real) Bill of Rights Saturday, Feb 10 2007
1L and Canadian Constitutional Law and Constitutional Law and Erin Morgan and McGill Faculty of Law 3:12 pm
Were there any protections in place for our rights before the Charter?
In this podcast we first look at the “implied bill of rights”, a concept drawn from a series of pre-Charter cases that seem to hint at the idea that there may be a sphere of fundamental freedoms needed for a democracy which is beyond the reach of the provincial (and perhaps federal) government. Then we will look at the Drybones case and discuss why the Canadian Bill of Rights was ineffectual. Next podcast we will begin on the Charter.
Reference re Alberta Statutes (1938)
Boucher v the King (1951)
Saumur v City of Qc (1953)
Switzman v Elbling (1957)
AG Canada v Dupond (1978)
Ontario Public Service Employees’ Union v AG Ontario (1987)
Canadian Bill of Rights (1960)
R v. Drybones (1970)
Curr v R (1972)
Winnipeg School Division 1 v Craton (1985)
Singh v Minister of Employment and Immigration (1985)
Canada v Lavell (1974)
Bliss v AG Canada (1979)
Canadian Constitutional Law #21:Racism in the Law, Pre-Charter Era Saturday, Feb 10 2007
1L and Canadian Constitutional Law and Constitutional Law and Erin Morgan and McGill Faculty of Law 3:12 pm
In this podcast we will look at three cases as examples of how racism in the law was dealt with before the charter entrenchment of rights. Without a constitutional document protecting rights, we see that the court could only strike racist legislation on the basis of division of powers. Both the JCPC and the Supreme Court explicitly state that it is not the place of the court to evaluate the wisdom or morality of discrimination in the law, their only role is to evaluate the constitutionality of the law. Predictably, this doesn’t do a lot to allow Japanese citizens in Vancouver to vote, or Chinese citizens in Saskatchewan to employ white waitresses.
Union Colliery Co v Bryden (1899)
Coal Mines Regulation Act
Cunningham v Tomey Homma (1903)
Female Employment Act (1912)
Quong Wing v the King (1914)
Canadian Constitutional Law #20: International Economic Obligations Saturday, Feb 10 2007
1L and Canadian Constitutional Law and Constitutional Law and Erin Morgan and McGill Faculty of Law 3:11 pm
In this podcast we discuss some of Canada’s international economic agreements, and how they are impacted by division of power issues regarding the economy. We will look at some ways in which the constitution is “amended” in practice - that is, the methods that may be employed to achieve a distribution of power between the two levels of government that is not strictly what one would expect from sections 91 and 92.
Hunt v T & N Plc. (1993)
Lovelace v Ontario (2000)
Hospital insurance and Diagnostic Services Act (1957)
Medical Care Act (1966)
Canada Health Act (1984)
Canada Assistance Plan 1966 (CAP)
Unemployment Insurance Reference (AG Canada v AG Ontario) (The Unemployment and Social Insurance Act) (1937)
AG Canada v. AG Ontario (Labour Conventions) (1937)
Winterhaven Stables v Canada (1989)
Reference re Canada Assistance Plan (BC) (1991)
Coughlin v Ontario Highway Transport Board (1968)