The Tŝilhqot’in Nation has had ample experience exercising its laws and jurisdiction to manage emergencies during record-breaking wildfires and the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite the Nation’s unique opportunity to formally describe and advance its jurisdiction through its landmark Aboriginal title declaration and beyond, in these crises, Crown actors have defaulted to well-worn patterns of colonialism. Through a detailed analysis of recent Tŝilhqot’in experiences of emergency, we argue that provincial and federal responses to these extreme events reveal constitutional habits: patterns of decision-making that emerge in the immediate response to an emergency, so as to appear automatic. Crown emergency responses assume exhaustive Crown jurisdiction and its corollary erasure and dispossession of Tŝilhqot’in jurisdiction. Fortunately, however, habits can change. We show how Tŝilhqot’in responses to emergency reveal alternate constitutional possibilities: habits of coordination, which, through their attention to responsible relationships, build capacity to respond to emergencies and, more broadly, a changing world.

Many Canadian Muslim couples are hesitant to resort to civil legal processes and attempt to resolve their disputes within the religious community. Islamic law’s exclusion of non-Muslim judges from holding judicial authority in certain family law matters limits the feasibility of aligning religious commands with family court orders. By extrapolating contemporary legal opinions (fatāwā, sing. fatwā) issued by institutions and narrating experiences of Canadian imams, this article documents the views of both researchers and practitioners, finding that neither holds secular court-ordered divorces contested by the husband to suffice as a form of Islamic marriage dissolution. This article concludes that both Canadian imams and fatwā-issuing bodies call for the development of extra-judicial entities that apply Islamic law’s Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) procedures in a manner recognized by secular authorities.

This article explores emotional harm in the context of the criminalization of HIV nondisclosure in Canada. With the exception of Matthew Weait in the United Kingdom, few scholars have examined what harm means in cases of HIV nondisclosure. We conceptualize the harm that follows nondisclosure as an affective response to the “HIV positive Other” and argue that law creates a legal norm about what harm is and feels like in cases of HIV nondisclosure when there is no clear consensus about how harm should be defined. Mobilizing the sociology of emotions literature, we contend that criminalizing HIV nondisclosure engages affective, moral, and criminal censure to regulate the behaviours of people living with HIV/AIDS (PLWH), thus reproducing HIV stigma and propagating emotional harm for PLWH. Canada’s response to HIV nondisclosure should instead involve a transformative justice approach that avoids the harm of criminalization and imprisonment while recognizing the emotional harm experienced by complainants.

With the 2016 Charity Law, Chinese legislators created a public-private hybrid model for the governance of charitable trusts. By endowing private actors with greater rights in the creation and management of charitable trusts, this hybrid model demonstrates the State’s intention of changing the functioning of the charitable trust sector from complete dependence on the State to a partnership. However, embedded in China’s particular institutional environment, the partnership relationship still bears the mark of strict government control, which is secured by granting extensive powers to regulators. This article analyzes the newly established regulatory framework for charitable trusts and outlines how regulators exercise their power in practice. The findings show that the tradition of regulators being subject to intense administrative pressures remains unchanged and that political concerns permeate every aspect of the regulation of charitable trusts.

Youths in care are among the most vulnerable youths in our society. All youths in care have experienced trauma and sometimes exhibit trauma-induced behaviours which are perceived by others as disruptive or dangerous. The police are frequently called, which begins a cycle of criminalization for many youths, with racialized youths overrepresented in this group. Using an intersectional theoretical framework, this article shows how discriminatory perceptions of race and mental health influence justice system actors’ decision-making, from arrest to bail. Drawing on data from qualitative interviews with twenty-five young adults (ages 18 to 24) who have had contact with the child welfare and criminal justice systems and ten practicing lawyers in Ontario, the analysis reveals race-based differences in justice system actors’ responses to mental illness. Discriminatory views function as a lens through which racialized and mentally ill youths leaving care are perceived as threats and met with more punitive responses.

This article examines how exploitation informs judicial interpretations of human trafficking in Canadian criminal cases. While socio-legal and popular notions of trafficking often suggest that forced movement into a decidedly exploitative labour context is required, our analysis of key appellate cases and constitutional challenges reveals that actual exploitation is not a necessary element of the offence. Instead, the trafficking in persons provision criminalizes the intent to exploit, while requiring the court to adopt an “objective” assessment of whether a reasonable person in the complainant’s circumstances could potentially fear for their safety in the context of providing (sexual) labour. We argue that this objective standard contributes to a gendered hierarchy of legal knowledge and ultimately privileges the perceived masculinized rationality of the courts and legal actors while rendering the subjective experiences of complainants as less central to the prosecution of human trafficking.

Building institutional and procedural bridges between science and policy is a vital role for law. Fundamental to the success of this work is the development of more sophisticated, nuanced understandings of scientific knowledge production than those which are current in legal and policy spheres. In this paper, I consider scientific controversies that have emerged in the field of human and environmental health impacts of endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs), notably around methodological approaches to identifying such chemicals and analysing the risks they pose. Building on literatures in the philosophy and sociology of science, I identify bases on which bridge-building between science and policy could proceed and discuss the role that legal normativity can play in those processes.

Mandatory meat inspection requirements have long been a source of frustration for advocates of ethical meat. Seen as overly restrictive and ill-adapted to the realities on the ground, some argue that farm-to-consumer sales should be subject to less stringent inspection requirements than conventional meat supply chains. Recently, a series of legislative reforms authorizing on-farm slaughter suggests that policy makers are listening. But do on-farm slaughter exemptions really facilitate ethical meat sales? To answer this question, this paper explores meat inspection systems in Quebec, Ontario, and Vermont. Drawing on data obtained from semi-structured interviews with producers, processors, and policy advisors, it argues that inspection requirements may not be the barriers they are presumed to be. Instead, producers and processors face other more significant financial and structural challenges. These need to be addressed if ethical meat is to be a viable alternative to the dominant model of animal agriculture.

This article offers a transnational perspective on Canada’s legislative response to globally expanded national security intelligence activities in the War on Terror since 2001. I situate Canada’s new legislation against the backdrop of US and Japanese legislative responses and analyze the transition, including Bill C-13 (2014), Bill C-44 (2015), Bill C-51 (2015), and Bill C-59 (2019). I argue that the thrust of this legislative trend has been the active legalization of previously illegal surveillance activities by security intelligence agencies, rather than passive ineffectiveness in restricting state mass surveillance enabled by information and communication technologies. The transition is in synch with a global legislative trend that lowers the legal standards of privacy and personal data protection and weakens checks and balances in democratic governance. As a result, mass surveillance has increasingly undermined and regulated the rule of law, not vice versa.

Prisoners in Canadian federal penitentiaries can obtain medical assistance in dying (MAiD). This raises questions about the nature and legitimacy of pain and death in incarceration. The authors analyze responses to a Canadian Broadcasting Corporation online news article discussing the provision of MAiD to prisoners. The comments exemplify different sensibilities about the state’s lethality with respect to prisoners. These sensibilities—both legal and penal—draw on an array of cultural referents to orient to prisoners’ deaths generally, but also MAiD specifically. The authors explore how certain referents factor in these legal and penal sensibilities and appear to mediate commenters’ judgements. For example, capital punishment factors significantly in conversations about MAiD for prisoners, as well as imaginations of prisoners’ bodies in pain. As a result, there is a spectacularization of prisoners’ carceral death, despite the humane, “civilized” death MAiD provides, which circumscribes how some commenters imagine the procedure and prisoners’ deaths.

Public support is a critical component of any court’s institutional legitimacy. Understanding the roots and durability of such support is therefore crucial. This article uses survey data to explore public attitudes towards Canadian courts from 2008 to 2019. This time period is especially relevant given the comparatively tumultuous relationship between the Supreme Court and the Conservative government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper (2006–2015). Notably, partisanship now appears to be a defining characteristic of court support in Canada, with Conservative Party supporters being less likely to support the courts. While institutional trust is also found to be a strong predictor of court support, this suggests public attitudes towards Canadian courts may no longer be as well shielded from the effects of changing political circumstances as they once were.

The Assisted Human Reproduction Act seeks to protect egg donors’ health and well-being and prevent trade in their reproductive capabilities. In order to fulfill these objectives, the Act prohibits the buying and selling of ova, and only allows for egg donors to be reimbursed for their expenses. However, no regulations setting out what expenses can be reimbursed were promulgated. Sixteen years later, these long-awaited regulations finally came into force in June 2020. In this study, I rely on data from interviews with sixteen egg donors in order to assess how the new regulations might help or hinder concerns that egg donors have with how egg transactions are regulated in Canada. I argue that the new regulations might hinder, more than help with, addressing current concerns related to egg transactions in Canada. The most likely result is that they will not change the current state of affairs.

The prosecutorial independence of the Attorney General (AG) is a firmly established constitutional convention in Canada, but it is also an evolving convention, subject to ongoing contestation and debate. This article is a contribution to that debate. It defends a normative constitutional framework wherein the AG’s authority to make final decisions in matters of criminal prosecution is balanced against a corresponding duty to consult with cabinet and the prime minister on the public interest implications of prosecutorial decisions when the circumstances warrant. Within this normative framework, respectful contestation and debate amongst ministers, the prime minister, and the AG in determining the public interest merits of prosecution is welcomed, even encouraged, and if conducted with the requisite integrity, objectivity, and transparency, it is regarded not as a threat but as a valuable check and balance on AG independence and an indispensable form of quality control on the exercise of prosecutorial discretion.

This paper argues that analytical jurisprudence has been insufficiently attentive to three significant puzzles highlighted by the legal pluralist tradition: the existence of commonalities between different types of law, the possibility of a distinction between law and non-law, and the explanatory centrality of the state. I further argue that the resolution of these questions sets the stage for a renewed agenda of analytical jurisprudence and has to be considered in attempts for reconciliation between the academic traditions of analytical jurisprudence and legal pluralism, often called “pluralist jurisprudence.” I also argue that the resolution of these problems affects the empirical, doctrinal, and politico-moral inquiries about legal pluralism.

Canada’s National Housing Strategy (NHS) commits the government to eliminating chronic homelessness and promises that realizing the right to housing is a key objective. In this article, we explore how the Canadian government could realize the right to housing in the context of eliminating chronic homelessness. We argue that it is helpful to look at how other jurisdictions have successfully reduced homelessness. In this article we examine Finland and Scotland’s approaches because they offer certain similarities in how homelessness is addressed, yet they also differ, most crucially in how they understand the right to housing. We argue that both of these jurisdictions offer important lessons for Canada to draw on as it seeks to reduce long-term homelessness.

Depuis plusieurs décennies, la laïcité subit en France une transformation profonde qui remet en cause sa dimension libérale. Le principe de séparation du politique et du religieux se dilue au profit de la promotion de la notion récente du « vivre‑ensemble », qui voudrait associer garantie de la liberté religieuse et défense des valeurs républicaines. Ce processus d’érosion s’appuie sur le développement d’une logique concordataire et sur l’émergence d’une conception « communautariste » de la laïcité.

Community trust in law enforcement and confidence in the administration of justice is put to the ultimate test when police officers act outside the limits prescribed by the criminal law. External and civilian oversight of the police can be essential to investigate and respond to allegations of police criminality and impropriety. However, little is known about the investigations completed by civilian oversight agencies and the prosecution of police officers. In this paper, we analyze 159 investigations by the Ontario Special Investigations Unit over a fifteen-year period. We examine each case from the laying of charges to prosecution through to sentencing. We provide an empirical analysis of how the justice system responds to police officers charged with a criminal offence. We situate these findings within the context of the broader justice system and police oversight. At the same time, we observe certain differences between the Canadian and American approaches to dealing with police offenders accused and convicted of criminal offences.

In R v Gladue, the Supreme Court of Canada famously remarked that the incarceration of Indigenous people represents a “crisis.” Since Gladue’s release, the language of “crisis” has been used with frequency in Canadian legal discourse. In this article, I analyze how this language has shaped the broader legal understanding of Indigenous mass imprisonment. My focus is not on specific iterations or uses, but on the cumulative impact of the language of “crisis” over the last twenty years. I suggest that however well-meaning these representations may be, their cumulative impact is harmful. In the face of the relentless intensification of Indigenous mass imprisonment, the language of “crisis” has operated to subtly entrench the colonial structures it purports to disrupt. Urging a shift away from its use, I argue that the language of “crisis” is not only ill suited to address the problem, but is part of the problem.