Download Free The New Process For Judicial Appointments To The Supreme Court Of Canada Book in PDF and EPUB Free Download. You can read online The New Process For Judicial Appointments To The Supreme Court Of Canada and write the review.

As the Canadian Judicial Council marks its 50th anniversary of service to Canadians, it is timely that we have revised and modernized Ethical Principles for Judges. From their first publication in 1998, these principles have laid out the ethical frame of reference to which all judges aspire: judicial independence, integrity and respect, diligence and competence, equality and impartiality.
In Governing from the Bench, Emmett Macfarlane draws on interviews with current and former justices, law clerks, and other staff members of the court to shed light on the institution’s internal environment and decision-making processes. He explores the complex role of the Supreme Court as an institution; exposes the rules, conventions, and norms that shape and constrain its justices’ behavior; and situates the court in its broader governmental and societal context, as it relates to the elected branches of government, the media, and the public.
The process by which Supreme Court judges are appointed is traditionally a quiet affair, but this certainly wasn’t the case when Prime Minister Stephen Harper selected Justice Marc Nadon for appointment to Canada’s highest court. Here, for the first time, is the complete story of “the Nadon Reference” – one of the strangest sagas in Canadian legal history. Following the Prime Minister's announcement, controversy swirled and debate raged: as a federal court judge, was Marc Nadon eligible for one of the three seats traditionally reserved for Quebec? Then, in March 2014, the Supreme Court of Canada broke new ground in statutory interpretation and constitutional law when it released the Reference re Supreme Court Act, ss 5 and 6. With detailed historical and legal analysis, including never-before-published interviews, The Tenth Justice explains how the Nadon Reference came to be a case at all, the issues at stake, and its legacy.
The main aim of this volume is to analyse common issues arising from increasing judicial power in the context of different political and legal systems, including those in North America, Africa, Europe, Australia, and Asia.
What should be the primary goals of a judicial appointments system, and how much weight should be placed on diversity in particular? Why is achieving a diverse judiciary across the UK taking so long? Is it time for positive action? What role should the current judiciary play in the appointment of our future judges? There is broad agreement within the UK and other common law countries that diversity raises important questions for a legal system and its officials, but much less agreement about the full implications of recognising diversity as an important goal of the judicial appointments regime. Opinions differ, for example, on the methods, forms, timing and motivations for judicial diversity. To mark the tenth anniversary of the creation of the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) in England and Wales, this collection includes contributions from current and retired judges, civil servants, practitioners, current and former commissioners on the JAC and leading academics from Australia, Canada, South Africa and across the UK. Together they provide timely and authoritative insights into past, current and future debates on the search for diversity in judicial appointments. Topics discussed include the role and responsibility of independent appointment bodies; assessments of the JAC’s first ten years; appointments to the UK Supreme Court; the pace of change; definitions of ‘merit’ and ‘diversity’; mandatory retirement ages; the use of ceiling quotas; and the appropriate role of judges and politicians in the appointments process.
The controversy raises challenging questions about the role of a powerful judiciary in a democracy. In Judicial Power and Canadian Democracy, a series of essays commissioned by the Institute for Research on Public Policy, some of Canada's foremost commentators - academics, politicians, and Supreme Court judges themselves - take up the debate. Some tangle over the pivotal question: should judges have the decisive say on issues involving entrenched rights that have profound implication for the policy preferences of elected bodies? Others examine related issues, including Supreme Court appointment procedures, interest group litigation, the historical roots of the notwithstanding clause, and the state of public opinion on Canada's courts. Those interested in the power of the judicial branch will find much in this collection to stimulate fresh thinking on issues that are likely to remain on the public agenda for years to come. Contributors include Joseph F. Fletcher (Toronto), Janet Hiebert (Queen's), Gregory Hein (Toronto), Peter W. Hogg (York), Paul Howe, Rainer Knopff (Calgary), Sébastien Lebel-Grenier (Sherbrooke), Howard Leeson (Regina), Kate Malleson (London School of Economics), E. Preston Manning (Reform Party of Canada), Hon. Beverley McLachlin (Supreme Court of Canada), F.L. Morton (Calgary), Pierre Patenaude (Sherbrooke), Peter Russell, Allison A. Thornton (Blake, Cassels and Graydon), Frederick Vaughan (emeritus, Guelph), Lorraine Eisenstat Weinrib (Toronto), Hon. Bertha Wilson (emeritus, Supreme Court of Canada), and Jacob Ziegel (Toronto).
In Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India, the Supreme Court of India, by majority, struck down the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC), established to appoint judges to the Supreme Court of India and High Courts. Unsurprisingly, the NJAC judgment has been the subject of a deeply polarized debate in the public sphere and academia. The essays in this volume analyse the NJAC judgment, and provide a rich context to it, in terms of philosophical, comparative, and constitutional issues that underpin it. The work traces the history of judicial appointments in India; analyses constitutional principles behind selecting judges and their application in the NJAC Case; and comparatively examines the judicial appointments process in six foreign jurisdictions, enquiring into what makes a good judge and an effective appointments process.
How accountable are judges for their decisions? Should they have greater independence? This study, by University of Toronto law professor Martin Friedland, examines the judiciary in Canada from a variety of perspectives and provides recommendations on these issues to the Canadian Judicial Council. Persons consulted include not only judges but also lawyers, government officials, administrators, and others. Topics include judicial selection, discipline, the administration of the courts, and more.