Author Archives: jurisblogger

Trombe Juridique Québécoise : Une Charte et un Juge

1 Reply

L’actualité juridique québécoise  m’offre gracieusement la chance d’écrire un billet en français. Bien que j’aurais aimé écrire quelque chose de positif, les récentes bourdes du gouvernement provincial et fédéral me poussent vers la critique (et la déception). Ces bourdes sont évidemment la charte des « valeurs » du Québec et la nomination du juge Nadon à la Cour suprême. Bien que ces deux évènements ne soient pas liés, ils ont en commun une forme d’amateurisme gouvernemental et une absence de réflexion poussée. J’aborde chaque bévue séparément.

Continue reading →

The Carter decision: Of Power and Permission

2 Replies

Carter and the right to end one’s life

Last week the British Columbia Court of Appeal decided to allow the Attorney General’s appeal to the constitutional challenge of the assisted suicide prohibition: the Carter case.[1] This case featured two persons named Gloria Taylor and Lee Carter. Both suffered from intractable and progressive diseases, and wished to have the option of physician assisted suicide when their life would become intolerable (they both passed away before the appeal was rendered). However, s 241(b) of the Criminal Code makes aiding or abetting a person to commit suicide a crime.[2] Ms. Carter and Taylor challenged the constitutionality of the section alleging a violation of their right to life, liberty and security of the person, and of their right to equality.[3] One of the major hurdles they faced was that a similar issue involving the same section of the Code was challenged on similar grounds and had been decided by the Supreme Court of Canada in the past.[4] In Rodriguez, the plaintiff lost her appeal to the Supreme Court by a close 5 to 4 vote. Nevertheless, the trial judge, Justice Smith, found that she was not bound by the Supreme Court ruling because this case raised three new grounds: (1) the right to life was not at stake in Rodriguez; (2) two principle of fundamental justice did not exist at the time of Rodriguez, overbroadness and gross disproportionality; (3) the majority did not consider s 15 (equality) in its entirety in addition to the fact that recent Supreme Court decisions changed the applicable test.[5] She found in the plaintiffs’ favour and declared the section unconstitutional with a grace period of one year for the government.

Continue reading →

Of Law School and Troglodytes: A survival guide

1 Reply

Note: My apologies for the lateness of this third and last instalment on law school advice. A member of my family recently passed away, and therefore time and will were missing in action.

The beginning of law school is an exciting moment, as are many new experiences. You are now entering (or you have already entered for some time) the deep, damp, dark and cold underground labyrinth that is law school. You are now a troglodyte … I mean student at law. The comparison to a troglodyte may seem unflattering, but like those mythical creatures you will now dwell in your own world cut out from reality and you will be blind to anything that is not related to law. At first, this strange new world will appear bizarre and unfamiliar, but as you grow accustom to it, it is the rest of the world that will become strange and distant. I may be exaggerating, but barely. It is not a negative thing per se and far from a uniquely law school phenomena (many professional schools create similar settings). Nevertheless, it can sometime be overwhelming and difficult to deal with since we have little frame of reference. Fear not brave new proto-troglodytes for I will try to help you on your quest with these tips and advice on how to survive (and maybe succeed) in law school.

Continue reading →

So you still want to go to law school? How to pick a law school

1 Reply

If you read through my last post and still think law school is for you, than you now have the difficult task of choosing where to apply, and, once you get admission letters, of where to go. Choosing a law school is like choosing any other program; everyone will have different priorities and taste. In that respect, this guide is not meant to determine what you should prioritize; instead it is meant to assist you in balancing your preferences with the reality of law school. The following list of consideration is therefore not built in order of importance. It is your task to determine which consideration is more important to you. You should, however, consider them all and avoid basing your decision solely on one point. Moreover, I’m always happy to discuss the matter further with readers in the comments or via email.

Continue reading →

Should I go to law school? A guide design to scare you away for your own good

2 Replies

Should I go to law should (or some variation) is a question I often get. The short answer is probably not. If you are just thinking about it and you say to yourself “well I have the grades for it”, then you shouldn’t go. For the determined ones, I made this little non-exhaustive list of things you should consider before deciding to apply to law school. Of course it’s based on the Canadian system, but it should remain relevant for other common law countries.

Continue reading →

One step forward, two steps back: the SCC, immigration & refugee law and discretion

1 Reply

The past decade has not been kind to migrants. The events of 9/11 added extra hurdles to immigration process as immigration authorities’ paranoia grew. Western countries’ hospitality is much colder as xenophobia increased fuelled by right wing political groups such as the Tea Party in the USA, the Front National in France or the Conservatives in Canada and the UK. In Canada, since the election of the conservative government of Prime Minister Harper, we have adopted a series of reforms in immigration and refugee law. The focused is now on so called “desirable” migrants, usually people with education and language proficiencies in English or French.[1] Inadmissibility rules continue to prohibit family from reuniting, disabled and sick migrants from settling, and otherwise qualified migrants with tenuous link to alleged terrorist groups from immigrating.[2] Parliament adopted the so called Balanced Refugee Reform Act in 2010 making it harder for refugees to seek protection in Canada.[3] Additionally, Refugees’ access to health care was cut by the federal government.[4] Many of those changes are being or will be challenged in court. Whether these challenges will succeed is hard to predict as the Supreme Court has tended to be deferential towards the government on immigration and refugee issues. Two cases handed down in the last two months may shed some light on what the future holds for refugee and immigration law.

Continue reading →