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/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

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

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Le présent texte constitue une réplique à l'article de Walter Chi Yan Tom, « Equality Rights in the Federal Independent Immigrant Selection Criteria » ((1990) 31 C. de D. 477.)) et dans lequel l'auteur affirmait que les critères de sélection de l'immigrant indépendant sont discriminatoires au regard de l'article 15 de la Charte constitutionnelle et ne peuvent se justifier par l'article 1. L'auteure affirme ici que la faculté d'apprécier et d'établir des distinctions dans le cours de la prise de décision administrative en la matière ne saurait équivaloir à la discrimination au sens de l'article 15. Elle examine le conflit entre la souveraineté de l'Etat et les principes généraux du droit, de même que l’utilisation par les tribunaux de la détermination de la qualité d'ester en justice pour éviter de se prononcer sur le fond constitutionnel. Enfin, elle critique l'absence de cohérence et de rationalité dans la reconnaissance de droits procéduraux à différentes catégories d'immigrants.This article is a response to Walter Chi Yan Tom's « Equality Rights in the Federal Independent Immigrant Selection Criteria », published in 1990 in this journal, in which it is asserted that the federal independent immigrant selection criteria are discriminatory within the meaning ofs. 15 of the Charter and are not demonstrably justified according to s. 1.The author argues that Tom badly distorts the section 15 meaning of discrimination when he equates the discretion and drawing of distinctions, which are part of the administrative decision-making process by which independent immigrants are selected, with section 15 discrimination. The article also addresses the conflict between State sovereignty and the sovereignty of universal legal principles, a conflict which is raised in Tom's article. Finally, the author examines the ways in which standing rights have been used by the courts in immigration decisions to avoid dealing with substantive Charter issues, and criticizes the lack of rationality and coherence in the assignment of due process rights to different classes of nonnationals under current immigration law

Independent Immigrant Selection Criteria and Equality Rights : Discretion, Discrimination and Due Process