The Anti-Inflation case: the anatomy of a constitutional decision

Abstract. The Supreme Court's decision upholding the Anti-Inflation Act may have been the Court's most important decision since becoming Canada's final Court of Appeal. While the federal government's wage and price control policy escaped a judicial veto, the Court's decision gave that policy only a temporary constitutional mandate. In so doing, the Court laid to rest, for the time being, any possibility that the national peace, order and good government power was to be dramatically expanded, but opened up the possibility of fairly easy access to the emergency use of the power in peacetime. By examining this decision in the context of the political and legal strategies of the parties, we may gain some valuable insights into the nature of judicial review in Canada. Among other things the case demonstrates the limited importance of judicial review in the politics of Canadian federalism. The Court's decision signals that a constitutional revolution is not about to occur, but the decision itself is not the major factor in preventing a centralizing shift in the balance of power. In fact the Supreme Court's decision reflects fairly accurately the balance of political power in the country. But while the case reveals how political the process of judicial review can be in Canada, still the end product of the process—the opinions of the judges—continues to be cast in a relatively legalistic' style. The Court may adjudicate constitutional disputes but it is not about to dispense constitutional wisdom. The case also teaches us something about the relative importance of economic and judicial resources in the political process. The main lesson is clear: bodi politicians and interest groups will risk losses in terms of long-run constitutional doctrine in order to secure important short-run policy objectives.     

Development of an Audit Tool to Evaluate the Documentation of Partner Abuse Assessments within a Provincial Emergency Department: An Exploratory Study

The aim of this study was to develop a clinically valid and reliable audit tool that evaluates the assessment documentation of females presenting to the emergency department following an assault secondary to partner abuse. A 5-step process informed by a quality improvement approach was used to develop the tool and good inter-rater reliability was achieved. The tool developed has wide utility in services implementing family violence intervention in which nurses have a key role.     

Linking early ADHD to adolescent and early adult outcomes among African Americans

Purpose

The purpose of this study is to propose a mediational model for the mechanisms through which a diagnosis of Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder between the ages of 10 and 12 predicts positive and negative early adult outcomes for African Americans.

Methods

The study sample (n = 211) was drawn from the Des Moines, Iowa subsample of the Family and Community Health Study. Participants were first assessed between the ages of 10 and 12, again between the ages of 12 and 18, and finally at 18 to 23.

Results

Findings indicate that a diagnosis of ADHD before age 13 indirectly predicted subsequent exclusionary school discipline and juvenile arrest in adolescence, and both arrests and educational attainment in young adulthood.

Conclusions

These findings offer support for the School to Prison Pipeline model, showing that for some African American children, a childhood diagnosis of ADHD can lead to negative school experiences that result in harsh school-based discipline, which in turn open the door to justice system involvement spanning several developmental stages.     

The Mavi Marmara Incident and the International Criminal Court

On 15 May 2013 the OTP announced that it was conducting a preliminary examination of the events surrounding Israel’s enforcement of its naval blockade against the Mavi Marmara on 31 May 2010 in order to determine whether a formal investigation into the incident should be opened. According to Article 53 of the Rome Statute, the OTP shall open a formal investigation where there is a reasonable basis to believe that (a) the ICC possesses temporal, territorial and subject-matter jurisdiction in relation to the situation, (b) it is admissible before the ICC and (c) that a formal investigation would not be contrary to the interests of justice. The application of this framework to the events that occurred on 31 May 2010 is difficult and complex, especially in regard as to whether the situation can be considered of sufficient gravity to warrant the ICC’s attention and whether any of the crimes enumerated in Article 5 of the Rome Statute have been committed. This notwithstanding, I argue that there is a reasonable basis to believe that these criteria are satisfied and therefore conclude by encouraging the OTP to open a formal investigation into the situation.