Supreme Court Law Review, 2nd Series, Volume 92
This volume is a collection of six papers developed from the Runnymede Society’s 2018 national conference by a community of legal experts in response to Supreme Court of Canada Justice Rosalie Abella’s comment that “the phrase ‘rule of law’ annoys her”.
Grounded on the intuition that the legal profession supports the rule of law, the papers examine the historical perspective on threats to the rule of law, the sufficiency of the current Canadian legal framework to support this ideal and how the principle of stare decisis as observed by the Supreme Court of Canada undermines the spirit of the rule of law. The volume also discusses how the law relating to Aboriginal title and the duty to consult fails to adhere to the Rule of Law standards and therefore to the detriment of indigenous and non-indigenous Canadians alike.
- In-depth study of origins of legal theories
- Focused examination of impact of doctrine of rule of law on development of aboriginal law in Canada
- Thought-provoking critiques from leading scholars of grounded legal doctrines
- Critical appraisal of the history of legal education in Canada
Table of contents
Maxime St-Hilaire and Joanna Baron: Introductory Essay: The Rule of Law as the Rule of Artificial Reason
Ryan Alford: The Origins of Hostility to the Rule of Law In Canadian Academia: A History Of Administrativism & Anti-Historicity
Léonid Sirota: The Rule of Law All the Way Up
Dwight Newman: The State of Stare Decisis and the Rule of Law
Brian Bird and Michael Bookman: Stare Decisis and the Charter
Malcolm Lavoie: Aboriginal Rights and the Rule of Law