Contact Kent Glowinski
Kent Glowinski's article on credit reporting is also available on SSRN
Legal Aid Ontario
Kent Glowinski class action article
Kent Glowinski York university
Lawyer Ottawa Ontario While the substance of the s. 1 test has essentially remained constant, its application has varied with the circumstances. The Supreme Court of Canada has stressed that the test is flexible and must be applied with sensitivity for the particular context (e.g., Dunmore v. Ontario (Attorney General), 2001 SCC 94 (CanLII), 2001 SCC 94 (CanLII), 2001 SCC 94 (CanLII), [2001] 3 S.C.R. 1016). Broadly speaking, where a legislature has been obliged to strike a balance between the claims of competing groups, the Court has been more inclined to defer to the legislative judgment than where the government acted as the “singular antagonist of the individual whose right has been infringed”, as is the case with criminal or penal laws (Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Quebec (Attorney General), 1989 CanLII 87 (S.C.C.), 1989 CanLII 87 (S.C.C.), 1989 CanLII 87 (S.C.C.), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 927; Libman v. Quebec (Attorney General), 1997 CanLII 326 (S.C.C.), 1997 CanLII 326 (S.C.C.), 1997 CanLII 326 (S.C.C.), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 569). The Court’s recent judgments, however, suggest that it views the mediator/antagonist distinction as imprecise, and that it will scrutinize the circumstances carefully before determining whether any deference is due: RJR-MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), 1995 CanLII 64 (S.C.C.), 1995 CanLII 64 (S.C.C.), 1995 CanLII 64 (S.C.C.), [1995] 3 S.C.R. 199; Thomson Newspapers v. Canada (Attorney General), supra. http://queen-of-the-north-news.newslib.com/story/7588-10/
http://kentglowinski.blogspot.com
http://kentglowinski.wordpress.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/kentglowinski
kent glowinski crtc ottawa lawyer
http://www.kentglowinski.org
http://www.elections.ca/content.asp?section=gen&document=res_table1210&dir=rep/dec3097&lang=e&textonly=false
http://creditreportingontario.wordpress.com/
http://www.uvss.uvic.ca/upload/docs/meetings.../minutes%202002-08-29.pdf
http://www.myspace.com/531678422
kent glowinski ottawa The onus of proof rests on the party seeking to uphold the limitation. The standard is the civil standard, by a preponderance of probabilities, and proof to the standard of science is not required (Ross v. New Brunswick School District No. 15, 1996 CanLII 237 (S.C.C.), 1996 CanLII 237 (S.C.C.), 1996 CanLII 237 (S.C.C.), [1996] 1 S.C.R. 825). In constitutional cases, evidence of “legislative facts” is subject to less stringent admissibility requirements than evidence in other kinds of cases: Danson v. Ontario (Attorney General), 1990 CanLII 93 (S.C.C.), 1990 CanLII 93 (S.C.C.), 1990 CanLII 93 (S.C.C.), [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1086. Courts are entitled to refer to evidence of various kinds, including material the legislature had before it when the statute was enacted, provided it is relevant and not inherently unreliable: R. v. Morgentaler, 1993 CanLII 74 (S.C.C.), 1993 CanLII 74 (S.C.C.), 1993 CanLII 74 (S.C.C.), [1993] 3 S.C.R. 463.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skeena_(electoral_district)
