Les Rapports Entre Le Droit Administratif Et Les Droits Et Libertes: La Revision Judiciaire Ou Le Controle Constitutionnel?
McGill Law Journal 2010, Sept, 55, 3
McGill Law Journal
This book is available for download with iBooks on your Mac or iOS device, and with iTunes on your computer. Books can be read with iBooks on your Mac or iOS device.
The author re-examines the decision in Roncarelli v. Duplessis in order to answer the following question: if administrative and constitutional law can both provide the solution to a given case, should the issue be resolved through a constitutional law approach, namely; the minimal impairment test developed in R. v. Oakes, or through the undue hardship criterion taken from the obligation of reasonable accommodation and usually associated with administrative law? Since it encourages normative self-reference, the reasonable accommodation approach more greatly respects the movement initiated by the Roncarelli decision. The author first examines the movement of reflexive proceduralization of the means of democratic governance that emerged from Roncarelli. He analyzes the reasoning underpinning the minority opinion of Justices Deschamps and Abella in the Multani v. Commission scolaire Marguerite-Bourgeoys judgment by the Supreme Court of Canada in 2006. and notes that it is their approach, based on the reasonable accommodation framework, that has been applied since then. Based on the work of various authors, he then suggests that the reasonable accommodation method is more appropriate, as it allows parties to construct and determine the meaning and the scope of the norm that governs them, thus giving them the opportunity to identify solutions that favour living together.
- 2,99 €
- Category: Law
- Published: 01 September 2010
- Publisher: McGill Law Journal (Canada)
- Print Length: 33 Pages
- Language: English