Supreme Court Law Review, 2nd Series, Volume 92
One Year Subscription Only Terms
Subscribers receive the product(s) listed on the Order Form and any Updates made available during the annual subscription period. Shipping and handling fees are not included in the annual price.
Subscribers are advised of the number of Updates that were made to the particular publication the prior year. The number of Updates may vary due to developments in the law and other publishing issues, but subscribers may use this as a rough estimate of future shipments. Subscribers may call Customer Support at 800-833-9844 for additional information.
Subscribers may cancel this subscription by: calling Customer Support at 800-833-9844; emailing email@example.com; or returning the invoice marked 'CANCEL'.
If subscribers cancel within 30 days after the product is ordered or received and return the product at their expense, then they will receive a full credit of the price for the annual subscription.
If subscribers cancel between 31 and 60 days after the invoice date and return the product at their expense, then they will receive a 5/6th credit of the price for the annual subscription. No credit will be given for cancellations more than 60 days after the invoice date. To receive any credit, subscriber must return all product(s) shipped during the year at their expense within the applicable cancellation period listed above.
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