A union list of serials commencing publication after Dec. 31, 1949.

When the Supreme Court of Canada makes a decision that invalidates a statute, it creates a constitutional moment. But does that have a direct and observable impact on public policy? Constraining the Court explores what happens when a statute involving a significant public policy issue – French language rights in Quebec, supervised consumption sites, abortion, or medical assistance in dying – is declared unconstitutional. James B. Kelly examines the conditions under which Parliament or provincial/territorial legislatures attempt to contain the policy impact of judicial invalidation and engage in non-compliance without invoking the notwithstanding clause. He considers the importance of the issue, the unpopularity of a judicial decision, the limited reach of a negative rights instrument such as the Charter, the context of federalism, and the mixture of public and private action behind any legislative response. While the Supreme Court’s importance cannot be denied, this rigorous analysis convincingly concludes that a judicial decision does not necessarily determine a policy outcome.

Contributors include Susan Bondy (Toronto), Andrée Demers (Montréal), Madelyn Fournier (consultant, Montreal), Norman Giesbrecht (Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, CAMH), Lynn Kavanagh (Mt Sinai Hospital, Toronto), Evert Lindquist (Victoria), Bronwyn MacKenzie (CAMH), Alan Ogborne (consultant), Robin Room (Stockholm), and Gina Stoduto (CAMH).

The Federal Court of Canada, which existed from 1875 to 1971 under the name Exchequer Court of Canada, occupies a special place in the court structure of Canada. It was founded principally to adjudicate legal disputes in which the Canadian government was involved; since its change of name in 1971 it has become primarily an administrative appeal court dealing with the review of decisions made by federal administrative tribunals in addition to its existing jurisdictions, admiralty, intellectual property, tax, and other areas. As a federal court within the nation, its very existence has provoked discussion and debate as the various provincial court systems claim a position of primacy within our society for the adjudication of legal disputes. Central to this history of the Court is an examination of the judges who have sat on its bench. Bushnell investigates who the judges have been and examines their work, with particular focus on the judges' views of the proper approach to decision-making. His study contains a wealth of information, much of which may not be widely known in the profession. As such, The Federal Court of Canada constitutes a rich source both for those with a legal background and for those with an interest in the working and history of legal institutions.

What does open government mean in practice? This book offers an authoritative and highly topical look at the implementation of reform from senior academics and civil servants. Britain's situation and future requirements are set in context by insights from other Westminster systems of government, namely Australia, Canada, Ireland and New Zealand. Each of these accounts is itself an original contribution to the literature on that country's experience. Throughout, the emphasis in upon freedom of information and privacy issues.