Rigour Required: Recent Direction from the Supreme Court of Canada on Binding and Non-Binding Sources of International Law in Charter Interpretation
The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference, Vol: 104, Issue: 1
2022
- 451Usage
- 2Captures
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Usage451
- Downloads285
- Abstract Views166
- Captures2
- Readers2
Article Description
It is not uncommon for parties to plead principles of international law to inform a court’s analysis of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the “Charter”). However, commentators have long expressed concern about the Supreme Court of Canada’s lack of clarity on how it uses international human rights law and for what purpose in Charter interpretation. This paper addresses how a divided Supreme Court of Canada in Quebec (Attorney General) v. 9147-0732 Québec inc. (“9147-0732 Québec inc.”) attempted to clarify when it is appropriate for a court to use international law to interpret the scope of a Charter protection and how this should be done. The paper is set out as follows: Part II sets out the background of the case, while Part III discusses the judgments of the lower courts. Part IV of the paper explains the disagreement between the majority and concurring justices in the Supreme Court’s judgment on the role of international law in Charter interpretation, while Part V analyzes the disagreement between the majority and concurring justices and the implications of the majority’s holding in 9147 for future cases.
Bibliographic Details
Osgoode Hall Law School, York University
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know