Sentences with phrase «british constitutional law»

James Sexton wrote: «Yes, you need to familiarize yourself with British constitutional law.

Well, as a British citizen with a long and deep interest in «British constitutional law», I will ask myself.

However, religious establishment (a term that may well be essentially contestable in British constitutional law) necessarily carries privileges with it that can not be afforded uniformly.

They did so, quite correctly, on the basis of British constitutional law.

Not exact matches

The constitutional change agenda gained momentum after the 1997 Labour landslide, when important changes were passed, like devolution in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and the Human Rights Act that incorporated the European Convention on Human Rights into British law.

But, as Professor MacLean noted in his paper, the Act of Union of 1707 was not simply a great political merger, creating a newly formed, British body of constitutional law, and a legislature to generate it in perpetuity.

In the 19th century, A. V. Dicey, a highly influential constitutional scholar and lawyer, wrote of the twin pillars of the British constitution in his classic work Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution (1885).

Mr Justice Blake found that British citizens have «a fundamental right of constitutional significance recognised by the common law» to live in their home country.

Advancing the idea of a British constitutional court at an EU justice select committee hearing in the House of Lords earlier this month the justice secretary, Michael Gove, said it could give British judges the power to decide not to enforce EU law if it was contrary to basic principles.

The 2017 SCC decision in B.C. Freedom of Information and Privacy Association v. British Columbia (Attorney General) could be particularly important in a social media age, Pal told a constitutional cases conference organized by the Osgoode Hall Law School in Toronto April 6.

We say this because the division of powers part of the judgement (commencing at para 98) is full of all sorts of references to two levels of government (see e.g. para 141) and similar comments about «interlocking federal and provincial schemes» that make it abundantly clear that this Court has given no thought to the space within which indigenous laws may operate within the modern constitutional order (for recognition that the law making authority of aboriginal peoples pre-dated the Crown's acquisition of sovereignty, was not extinguished by that acquisition of sovereignty and was not impaired by the division of legislative powers between the federal and provincial governments in 1982 see Campbell v British Columbia (2000), 189 DLR (4th) 333 (BCSC) and Justice Deschamps in Beckman v Little Salmon / Carmacks First Nation, [2010] 3 SCR 103 at para 97).

Correspondingly the constitutional law of Indigenous territorial sovereignty is ignored by the North American judiciary, as recently illustrated by the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in the case of Tsilhqot» in Nation v. British Columbia, 2014 SCC 44.

(1) Access to the s. 96 courts is a fundamental premise of the constitutional arrangement of Canada which can not be materially hindered by anyone (BCGEU)[British Columbia Government Employees» Union v. British Columbia (Attorney General), [1988] 2 S.C.R. 214], including either Parliament or the legislatures, just as public and political discourse may not be abrogated by law (Alberta Reference)[Reference re Alberta Statutes, [1938] S.C.R. 100].

Two British Columbia advocacy groups have launched a constitutional challenge with the Supreme Court of British Columbia in order to obtain more funding for legal aid for women involved in family law cases.

(1) At present the constitution is a lie for the majority of the population, i.e., because of the law's complexity, the rule of law and constitutional rights and freedoms declared by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms require the assistance of a lawyer, especially for litigation — see: British Columbia (A.G.) v. Christie, [2007] 1 S.C.R. 873, [2007] S.C.J. No. 21, at para. 22.

And, I suppose there's some reason to consider there's some basis for believing the fact that the Ontario Court of Appeal and the British Columbia Court of Appeal seem to have different views on the law regarding causation could be some basis for believing there's something about the law regarding causation that's a wee bit controversial (even accepting that the division of powers structure in the Constitution Act means that that conflict IS constitutional).

Based on these findings, the government appointed five commissioners to lead the inquiry: Marion Buller (chief commissioner, member of the Mistawasis First Nation and first Indigenous woman appointed to British Columbia's provincial court bench), Michèle Audette (former president of the Native Women's Association of Canada), Brian Eyolfson (human rights lawyer), Marilyn Poitras (constitutional law expert) and Qajaq Robinson (lawyer raised in Nunavut).

My article on the Evans case — «A Tangled Constitutional Web: The Black - Spider Memos and the British Constitution's Relational Architecture» — was published in Public Law in October 2015.

In British Columbia (Attorney General) v. Christie, [2007] 1 S.C.R. 873, the SCC further examined the content of the constitutional principle of rule of law, and found that the rule of law did not support a general right to counsel.

Among her other writings were Privy Council, Cabinet, and Ministry in Britain and Canada: A Story of Confusion, Attitudes in the Philadelphia Convention towards the British System of Government, Constitutional law — citing Canada's Constitution — problems and proposed solutions; If the queen were to abdicate: procedure under Canada's constitution; Ontario's courts, 1867 - 1987: conflicts and confusion; Parliament, the Executive and the Governor - General; Parliamentary privilege in Canada; Robert's Rules of Order: editions, reprints, and competitors; The Canada Act 1982 — some facts and comments; The Judiciary in Canada: the Third Branch of Government, and Defining Constitution of the Province — The Crux of the Manitoba Language Controversy.

The Conservative government then amended the law to provide for British - style special advocates for the suspects, who would be sworn to secrecy and could look at the evidence, and in its decision on Wednesday the court said this was constitutional.