One of the most controversial disputes brought under Chapter 11 is the case of Ethyl v. Canada in 1997 (Sears, 476). American company Ethyl Corporation was the sole shareholder of Canadian company Ethyl Canada Inc which was located in Ontario (Staff & Lewis, 319). Ethyl was a chemical company which exported and sold Methylcyclopentadienyl Manganese Tricarbonyl or MMT (Swan, 151-152). On April 25th 1997, Canadian Parliament passed the Manganese-based fuel Additives Act which prohibited the commercial use of MM (Staff & Lewis, 319). Ethyl had previously threatened the Canadian government with a suit if the law were to be pushed through as they claimed that the law would amount to expropriation and were entitled to compensation (Swan, 151-152). …show more content…
Ethyl v. Canada remains a controversial case because it illustrates the possible dangers of the investor-state settlement disputes. Ethyl Company was able through Chapter 11 to alter a significant piece of Canadian legislation. The Manganese-based fuel Additives Act was created in order to address environmental and health concerns related to the use of MMT. In his analysis of NAFTA’s chapter 11, Scott Sinclair argued that the Ethyl case spearheaded a worrying trend amongst investors and company to rely on Chapter 11 when their environmentally-controversial projects are challenged (Sinclair, 6). The Ethyl v. Canada case shows that Chapter 11 of NAFTA can be detrimental when business interests conflict with public interests as it hinders on the state’s policy-making ability and scope. This phenomenon is labeled as the ‘chilling effect’ and scholars have warned of its dangers on governmental actions (Sinclair, 9). The threat of investor retaliation limits the actions of policy-makers and runs the risks of linking public policy, particularly concerning environmental concerns, to corporate/investor …show more content…
The agreement did not as many had feared integrate the Canadian economy into the American economy and make Canada an extended American state. Since NAFTA’s implementation, the US remains Canada’s largest export-import partner. However many of the significant benefits of NAFTA, such as the elimination of trade barriers, had already been outlined in the FTA agreement in 1989. The benefits extended by NAFTA to Canada had already been granted by the FTA. The benefits of globalization and open trade have created a trading bloc in North America that allows for an unprecedented flow of goods and capital. Whereas NAFTA’s economic policies have benefitted Canada - a significant point of contention is Chapter 11 of NAFTA. This Chapter has often been at the forefront of Canadian interests when attempting to reform certain NAFTA clause. Chapter 11 has, not only caused huge monetary losses to Canada, but posses a threat to the sovereignty of the Canadian state for the sake of foreign corporations. Environmental interests and policies have been sacrificed due to ISDS. Therefore, it can be agreed that on economic grounds, NAFTA has been relatively beneficial to Canada but Chapter 11, taking into account the rising number of ISDS, ought to be reviewed and
Wife appealed from the judgement of Supreme Court, Special Term, Westchester County, N.Y., Morrie Slifkin, J modifying a judgment of divorce by awarding custody of the parties’ children to the husband.
This essay will analyze the entire case R. v. Morin and evaluate the facts, issues, positions of the Crown and accused. The decisions made during this case and reasons that ultimately lead to the final verdict by the Ontario Court of appeal. This essay will evaluate the decision of whether the delay of the R. v. Morin and the cases that it set precedent for were valid decisions made by the court. This evaluation will describe the arguments made on both sides during these trials. It will discuss how the decision made by the court to decide the trial delay being reasonable were the correct decisions and that section 11(b) of the Charter was not violated. The essay will also discuss the court cases R. v. Godin...
In the case of Canada v. Bedford, three sex workers in Ontario Canada, Jean Bedford, Amy Lebovitch and Valerie Scott, challenged the Charter as they stated that the following sections in the Criminal Code violate the rights promised and protected under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; CC s 210, CC s. 212(1) (j), and CC s. 213(1) (c). These sections “make it an offence to keep or be in a bawdy-house, prohibit living on the avails of prostition, and prohibits communicating in public for the purposes of prostitution,” (Canada v. Bedford, 2013, 6-3). The women claimed that these restrictions did not, in fact, prevent but implement more danger for anyone in the field of work. The women claimed that these restrictions went against their rights protected under s. 2(b) of the Charter as it disabled them from their right to freedom of expression (Canada v. Bedford, 2013, 6). As the provisions were set to prevent “public nuuisance” and “exploitation of prositutes,” they in fact go against the rights in s. 7 of the Charter. Thus, being under declaration of invalidity. This in fact brings upon question on whether it is the right decision to allow prostitution without any regulation in order to impose that the the Charter is not being violated, or whether to suspend the declaration until a proper method has been developed (while infringing the rights of those in the field of work). Ultimately, all of the laws were struck down by the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada.
The subsequent paragraphs contain a general analysis as well as a description of the legal questions and principles that were raised in the age discrimination case of Mckinney v. University of Guelph. This case raised the issue of whether a company or organization (in this case, a post secondary institution for education) should have jurisdiction over the age at which an individual must retire. Additionally, this document contains an analysis of the laws of mandatory retirement and how they are still currently in effect in countries such as China. Along with the aforementioned is a description of how mandatory retirement is imperative to population management,
Blair, Annice. Law in Action: Understanding Canadian Law. Toronto, Ontario: Pearson Education Canada, 2003. Print.
Frye v. United States and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals are both legal decisions that set forth standards as they pertain to the admissibility of scientific or forensic evidence, and the admissibility of expert witness testimony. Both cases deal with the admissibility of evidence in judicial proceedings, and prevent prosecutors from abusing the use of expert witnesses and testimony. Due to a loophole that dismisses recent scientific advances when applying the Frye Rule, the Supreme Court revisited Frye, and “took the occasion to issue guidelines for deciding the admissibility of scientific evidence” (Gaensslen, Harris, & Henry, 2008, p. 53). The decision resulted in a five-prong approach called the Daubert Standard.
Rodriguez V. Attorney General Of Canada." Issues In Law & Medicine 9.4 (1994): 389. Academic Search Complete. Web. 16 Nov. 2013.
Public law : Cases, materials, and commentary In Forcese C. (Ed.), . Toronto: Toronto : Emond Montgomery Publications, 2006.
R. v. Martineau, [1990] 2 SCR 633 (n.d.). In Judgements of the Supreme Court of Canada.
In Jesse Root’s post on case of Kanthasamy V.Canada, she gave her explanation on how Supreme Court issues decision in Kanthasamy. I would like to further discuss how the Supreme Court changes the previous understanding of the legal test for application for humanitarian and compassionate discretion.
The concept of persecution is not defined in the IRPA. In Canada (Attorney General) v Ward, [1993] 2 SCR 689 at paragraph 63, the Supreme Court defined it as a “sustained or systemic violation of basic human rights demonstrative of a failure of state protection.” In order to constitute persecution, the treatments in question must be serious and repetitive or systematic. In Chan v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1995] 3 SCR 593 at paragraph 71, the Supreme Court further stated the following: “[t]he essential question is whether the persecution alleged by the claimant threatens his or her basic human rights in a fundamental way.” Thus, establishing fear of persecution is central in making a successful claim under section 96(a) of the IRPA.
Sandra Lovelace v. Canada, Communication No. R.6/24, U.N. Doc. Supp. No. 40 (A/36/40) at 166 (1981).
The criminal case of R v. Smith (Edward Dewey) had a significant impact on Canadian law for narcotics punishments, as well as redefined the concept of crueal and unusual punishment. Throughout the course of this case, the base concept of cruel and unusual punishment was re-defined and put into effect. Since cruel and unusual punishment is a changing concept as time goes on, the redefinition of it was entirely necessary. As for the Canadian citizens that this has affected, many non-violent people who are affiliated with drug trafficking, either voluntary or non-voluntary, will have reasonable punishments instead of grossly disproportionate ones. The case of R v Smith in 1987 had a meaningful influence on Canadian law pertaining to narcotics
In the early months of 1994 an investigative journalist named, “Harvey Cashore”, had received a tip in regards to the European consortium (Johnson, 2010). The tip had alleged that Airbus Industries had paid bribes to Canadian politicians during the former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney era, in exchange for the crown corporation (Air Canada) to purchase 1.8 billion dollar order from Airbus industries (Johnson, 2010). This would launch a 15-year investigation into Brian Mulroney and Karlheinz Schreiber a German Canadian businessman and his alleged role in the Airbus affair (Johnson, 2010).
In 1986, a waste treaty between Canada and the U.S. was signed by American lawmakers concerning the Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Waste. Under the terms of this treaty, the EPA is to receive notification of these shipments, and then would have 30 days to consent or object to the shipment. Since 1986 Canada has shipped its garbage to Michigan to be dumped into landfills and the provisions of this treaty have never been enforced. But now is the time for them to be enforced and stop the importing of Canada's garbage.