Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T05:12:37.440Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Bills of Rights in Common Law Countries

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 January 2008

Beverley McLachlin
Beverley McLachlin
Affiliation:
Cheif Justice of Canada
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

On 17 April 2002, Canada will mark the 20th anniversary of the adoption of its bill of rights—the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. At the time, it seemed a momentous event to many, a strange thing to do. True, Canada was a bi-jural country, thanks to Quebec and the Civil Code. Nevertheless, the rest of the country sat solidly in the common law tradition. Codes, or so we thought, were anathema to common law systems that prided themselves on protection of rights through the incremental growth of precedent.

Type
Articles
Information
International & Comparative Law Quarterly , Volume 51 , Issue 2 , April 2002 , pp. 197 - 203
Copyright
Copyright © British Institute of International and Comparative Law 2002

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 [1986] 2 SCR 573.

2 Swain v The Queen [1991] 1 SCR 933.

3 Lavigne v OPSUE [1991] 2 SCR. 211; Douglas Kwantlen Faculty Assn v Douglas College [1990] 3 SCR 570.

4 Operation Dismantle v The Queen [1985] 1 SCR 441.

5 [1995] 2 SCR 1130.

6 4th edn, 858.

7 (1963) 376 US 254.

8 s 32.

9 [1989] 1 SCR 1038, at 1078; R v Swain [1991] 1 SCR 933, at 1010; R v Nova Scotia Pharmaceutical Society [1992] 2 SCR 606, at 660; R v Lucas [1998] 1 SCR 439, at para 66; R v Sharpe [2001] 1 SCR 45, at para 33.

10 [1985] 1 SCR 721.

11 [1992] 2 SCR 679.

12 [1991] 2 SCR 577.

13 [1999] 3 SCR 668.

14 Peter Hogg and Allison Bushell ‘The Charter Dialogue Between the Courts and Legislatures’ (1997) Osgoode Hall Law J 75.