English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

Assessments of “reasonableness” are central to adjudicating claims under several Charter rights and the section one “reasonable limits” clause. By comparing Supreme Court of Canada rulings to facta submitted by the Attorney General of Canada to the Court, this article examines the federal government’s success under Prime Minister Harper at persuading the Supreme Court of Canada that its Charter infringements in the area of criminal justice policy are reasonable, and when they fail to do so, on what grounds. The evidence reveals that the Conservative government adopted a consistently defensive posture in court, never conceding that a law was unreasonable, and that this government was almost never able to defend an impugned criminal justice law under s.1. While several of these losses concerned pre-Harper era laws, the Court did reject several Conservative criminal justice policies, most notably some mandatory minimum sentencing laws. The article’s novel systematic analysis also shows that the Court sometimes rejected the federal government’s characterization of the legislative objective.

Unreasonable Disagreement?: Judicial-Executive Exchanges about Charter Reasonableness in the Harper Era