Extraterritoriality is the state of being exempted from the jurisdiction of local law as the result of diplomatic negotiations. This applied to individuals, as jurisdiction was claimed on peoples rather than on lands. Extraterritoriality can be applied to physical places, such as foreign embassies, military bases of foreign countries, or offices of the United Nations; the three most common cases recognized today internationally relate to the persons and belongings of foreign heads of state, the persons and belongings of ambassadors and other diplomats, ships in international waters. In the past, pre-modern states claimed sovereignty over persons, creating something known as personal jurisdiction; as people move between borders, this led to, in the framework of a territorial jurisdiction, certain persons being under the laws of countries in which they did not reside. Extraterritoriality, in this sense, emerges from the interaction of these two conceptions of jurisdiction and territorial, when laws are applied based on who a person is rather than where they are.
In the modern day, extraterritoriality can take various forms. Most famous are examples of diplomatic extraterritoriality, where diplomats and their belongings do not operate under the laws of their host nations, but rather, under the laws of the diplomat's nation. Many nations claim the right to prosecute foreign combatants and violators of human rights under doctrines of universal jurisdiction, irrespective of the nationality of those persons or the place in which the alleged crimes occurred; this extends to domestic criminal codes as well: for example, the People's Republic of China claims the right to prosecute Chinese citizens for crimes committed abroad and Canada will prosecute sexual abuse of minors by a Canadian anywhere in the world. And in some military or commercial agreements, some nations cede legal jurisdiction for foreign bases or ports to other countries. For example, Japan cedes jurisdiction over American military bases on its soil in Okinawa to US military tribunals pursuant to a bilateral status of forces agreement.
In maritime law, ships in international waters are governed by the laws of the jurisdiction in which that ship is registered. This can be conceived of as a form of extraterritoriality, where a nation's jurisdiction extends beyond its border per se. During the 13th and 14th centuries, the Italian sea republics of Genoa and Venice managed to wrestle extraterritoriality for their quarters in the Byzantine capital, Constantinople, they battled among themselves for further control of the weakened empire. Various "Capitulations" were a series of treaties between the Sublime Porte and Western nations, from the sixteenth through the early nineteenth centuries; the legal impenetrability of the Ottoman legal code created during the Tanzimat era began to weaken continuously through the spread of European colonialism and the prevalence of legal positivism. The laws and regulations created for Ottoman subjects to abide by did not apply to European nationals conducting business and trade in the provinces of the empire, thus various capitulations were brought into effect with respect to many foreign powers.
The various overlapping governmental laws led to legal pluralism in which jurisdiction was left up to the great powers to institute and organize their own legal structures to represent their citizens abroad. The capitulations ceased to have effect in Turkey in 1923, by virtue of the Treaty of Lausanne, in Egypt they were abolished by the Montreux Convention in 1949. During the Second World War, the military personnel of the Allied Forces within the British Raj were governed by their own military codes by the Allied Forces Ordinance, 1942 and the members of the United States Armed Forces were governed by their own laws in criminal cases. Princess Margriet of the Netherlands was born on 19 January 1943 in Ottawa Civic Hospital, Ontario, as the family had been living in Canada since June 1940 after the occupation of the Netherlands by Nazi Germany; the maternity ward of Ottawa Civic Hospital in which Princess Margriet was born was temporarily declared to be extraterritorial by the Canadian government.
Making the maternity ward outside of the Canadian domain caused it to be unaffiliated with any jurisdiction and technically international territory. This was done to ensure that the newborn would derive her citizenship from her mother only, thus making her Dutch, which could be important had the child been male, as such, the heir of Princess Juliana; the most famous cases of extraterritoriality in East Asia are those of 19th century China and Siam, emerging from what is termed the "unequal treaties". The practice of extraterritoriality, was not confined to the 19th century or these nations, as the monarchs and governments of pre-modern East Asia claimed sovereignty over people rather than tracts of land; the creation of extraterritoriality for treaty nations "was not introduced into East Asia ex novo, but built atop a long-standing legal edifice". Jurisdiction in Qing dynasty China, with differential treatment for Han and Manchu subjects, was not determined by geography, but rather, by the identity of the subjects.
For example, the ruling Manchu elite possessed legal privileges which placed them outside the jurisdiction of local ethnically Chinese administrators. Before the Treaty of Nanking, which ended the First Opium War, foreign merchants were not satisfied with the state of the Qing dynasty's legal system. British merchants were "suspicious of what they regarded as a tendency in the Qing legal order to impose collective responsibility.
Beverley Marian McLachlin, CStJ is a Canadian jurist and author who served as the 17th Chief Justice of Canada from 2000 to 2017, the first woman to hold that position and the longest serving Chief Justice in Canadian history. In her role as Chief Justice, she simultaneously served as a Deputy of the Governor General of Canada. McLachlin retired December 15, 2017, nine months before reaching the mandatory retirement age of 75, her successor as Chief Justice of Canada is Richard Wagner, nominated by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in 2017. Her successor as a Justice of the Court is Sheilah Martin, nominated by the Prime Minister through a new process for judicial appointments to the Supreme Court of Canada that permitted "any Canadian lawyer or judge who fits a specified criteria" to apply. In March 2018, McLachlin was nominated to become a non-permanent judge on the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal, the first Canadian jurist nominated to the post; the appointment came into effect July 30, 2018, for a three-year term.
McLachlin was born Beverley Gietz in Pincher Creek, the eldest child of Eleanora Marian and Ernest Gietz. Her parents, who were of German descent, were "fundamentalist Christians" of the Pentecostal Church, she received a B. A. and an M. A. in philosophy and an LL. B. degree from the University of Alberta. She was called to the Bar of Alberta in 1969 and to the Bar of British Columbia in 1971, she practised law from 1969 until 1975. From 1974 to 1981, she was an Associate Professor and Professor with tenure at the University of British Columbia, she has one son, from her first marriage to Roderick McLachlin, who took care of much of Angus's upbringing. Her first husband died of cancer in 1988, a few days after she was appointed chief justice of the B. C. Supreme Court. In 1992 she married Frank McArdle, a lawyer and executive director of the Canadian Superior Courts Judges Association. In April 1981, McLachlin was appointed to the County Court of Vancouver. Just five months she was appointed to the Superior Court of British Columbia.
In 1985 she was appointed to the British Columbia Court of Appeal, three years in 1988 she was appointed Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of British Columbia. She was nominated by Brian Mulroney to be made a Puisne Justice to the Supreme Court of Canada on March 30, 1989. On the advice of Jean Chrétien, she was made Chief Justice of Canada on January 7, 2000. Upon being sworn into the Supreme Court of Canada, she became a Deputy of the Governor General of Canada together with the other justices of the Supreme Court; when Governor General Adrienne Clarkson was hospitalized for a cardiac pacemaker operation on July 8, 2005, McLachlin performed the duties of the Governor General as the Administrator of Canada. In her role as Administrator, she gave royal assent to the Civil Marriage Act which legalized same-sex marriage nationally in Canada, she relinquished that task. She is the Chairperson of the Canadian Judicial Council, on the Board of Governors of the National Judicial Institute, on the Advisory Council of the Order of Canada.
She is a Member of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada. She was made a Commander of the Legion of Honour by the Government of France in 2008. On December 15, 2006, she was appointed Commander of the Venerable Order of Saint John. McLachlin has defined her function as one that requires conscious objectivity, which she describes as follows: What you have to try to do as a judge, whether you're on charter issues or any other issue, is by an act of the imagination put yourself in the shoes of the different parties, think about how it looks from their perspective, think about it, not just give it lip service... As a judge, I've been a judge for a long time, I have always resolved to just try to judge the issues as as I can, not to think about things in too strategic a manner. My job is to listen to what the parties have to say, to do my best to understand the position, the ramifications of deciding one way or the other, to think about what’s best for Canadian society on this particular problem that’s before us, give it my best judgment after listening to my eight other colleagues.
So there's a consensual element there. McLachlin has stated, "I think the court belongs to the Canadian people and it should reflect the Canadian people." In the opinion of an interviewer, this is "not only to convey an impression of balance, but to bring in perspectives that were so long absent from the judicial imagination. To her, judgment is not a coldly neutral evaluation of competing positions, robotically free of passion or perspective, it is an engaged, human act of imagination."The Supreme Court, under McLachlin, ruled against the former Conservative government of Stephen Harper on several important issues, including prostitution, assisted suicide, mandatory minimum gun crime sentences, Senate reform, whether Taliban fighter Omar Khadr deserved an adult sentence, whether Federal Court judge Marc Nadon could be elevated to the Supreme Court. McLachlin surpassed Sir William Johnstone Ritchie as the longest-serving Chief Justice of Canada in history on September 22, 2013. McLachlin was nominated in March 2018 to become a non-permanent member of the Court of Final Appeal in Hong Kong.
The Court appoints foreign judges from common-law jurisdictions outside of Hong Kong, of which McLachlin is the first Canadian, to sit as non-permanent members of the court. Her appointment was approved by the Hong Kong Legislative Council, the Chief Executive gazetted the appointment effective July 30, 2018. McLachlin's
Ultra vires is a Latin phrase meaning "beyond the powers". If an act requires legal authority and it is done with such authority, it is characterised in law as intra vires. If it is done without such authority, it is ultra vires. Acts that are intra vires may equivalently be termed "valid" and those that are ultra vires "invalid". Legal issues relating to ultra vires can arise in a variety of contexts: Companies and other legal persons sometimes have limited legal capacity to act, attempts to engage in activities beyond their legal capacity may be ultra vires. Most countries have restricted the doctrine of ultra vires in relation to companies by statute. Statutory and governmental bodies may have limits upon the acts and activities which they engage in. Subordinate legislation, purported passed without the proper legal authority may be invalid as beyond the powers of the authority which issued it. In corporate law, ultra vires describes acts attempted by a corporation that are beyond the scope of powers granted by the corporation's objects clause, articles of incorporation or in a clause in its Bylaws, in the laws authorizing a corporation's formation, or similar founding documents.
Acts attempted by a corporation that are beyond the scope of its charter are voidable. An ultra vires transaction cannot be ratified by shareholders if they wish it to be ratified; the doctrine of estoppel precluded reliance on the defense of ultra vires where the transaction was performed by one party. A fortiori, a transaction, performed by both parties could not be attacked. If the contract was executory, the defense of ultra vires might be raised by either party. If the contract was performed, the performance was held to be insufficient to bring the doctrine of estoppel into play, a suit for quasi-contract for recovery of benefits conferred was available. If an agent of the corporation committed a tort within the scope of his or her employment, the corporation could not defend on the ground the act was ultra vires. Several modern developments relating to corporate formation have limited the probability that ultra vires acts will occur. Except in the case of non-profit corporations, this legal doctrine is obsolescent.
The Model Business Corporation Act of the United States states that: "The validity of corporate action may not be challenged on the ground that the corporation lacks or lacked power to act." The doctrine still has some life among non-profit corporations or state-created corporate bodies established for a specific public purpose, such as universities or charities. According to American laws, the concept of ultra vires can still arise in the following kinds of activities in some states: Charitable or political contributions Guaranty of indebtedness of another Loans to officers or directors Pensions, stock option plans, job severance payments, other fringe benefits The power to acquire shares of other corporations The power to enter into a partnership Historically all companies in the United Kingdom were subject to the doctrine of ultra vires and any act, outside of the objects specified in a company's memorandum of association would be ultra vires and void; that result was commercially unpalatable, led to companies being formed with wide and generic objects clauses permitting a company to engage in all manner of commercial activities.
The position was changed by statute by the Companies Act 1985 which abolished the doctrine in relation to commercial companies. The position is now regulated by the Companies Act 2006, sections 31 and 39, which greatly reduces the applicability of ultra vires in corporate law, although it can still apply in relation to charities and a shareholder may apply for an injunction, in advance only, to prevent an act, claimed to be ultra vires. In many jurisdictions, such as Australia, legislation provides that a corporation has all the powers of a natural person plus others. Under constitutional law in Canada and the United States, constitutions give federal and provincial or state governments various powers. To go outside those powers would be ultra vires. According to Article 15.2 of the Irish constitution, the Oireachtas is the sole lawmaking body in the Republic of Ireland. In the case of CityView Press v AnCo, the Irish Supreme Court held that the Oireachtas may delegate certain powers to subordinate bodies through primary legislation, so long as these delegated powers allow the delegatee only to further the principles and policies laid down by the Oireachtas in primary legislation and not craft new principles or policies themselves.
Any piece of primary legislation that grants the power to make public policy to a body other than the Oireachtas is unconstitutional. Thus, in a number of cases where bodies other than the Oireachtas were found to have used powers granted to them by primary legislation to make public policy, the impugned primary legislation was read in such a way that it would not have the effect of allowing a subordinate body to make public
Supreme Court of Canada
The Supreme Court of Canada is the highest court of Canada, the final court of appeals in the Canadian justice system. The court grants permission to between 40 and 75 litigants each year to appeal decisions rendered by provincial and federal appellate courts, its decisions are the ultimate expression and application of Canadian law and binding upon all lower courts of Canada, except to the extent that they are overridden or otherwise made ineffective by an Act of Parliament or the Act of a provincial legislative assembly pursuant to section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The creation of the Supreme Court of Canada was provided for by the British North America Act, 1867, renamed in 1982 the Constitution Act, 1867; the first bills for the creation of a federal supreme court, introduced in the Parliament of Canada in 1869 and in 1870, were withdrawn. It was not until 8 April 1875 that a bill was passed providing for the creation of a Supreme Court of Canada. However, prior to 1949, the Supreme Court did not constitute the court of last resort: litigants could appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in London.
As well, some cases could bypass the court and go directly to the Judicial Committee from the provincial courts of appeal. The Supreme Court formally became the court of last resort for criminal appeals in 1933 and for all other appeals in 1949; the last decisions of the Judicial Committee on cases from Canada were made in the mid-1950s, as a result of their being heard in a court of first instance prior to 1949. The increase in the importance of the Court was mirrored by the numbers of its members; the Court was established first with six judges, these were augmented by an additional member in 1927. In 1949, the bench reached its current composition of nine justices. Prior to 1949, most of the appointees to the Court owed their position to political patronage; each judge had strong ties to the party in power at the time of their appointment. In 1973, the appointment of a constitutional law professor Bora Laskin as chief justice represented a major turning point for the Court. In this period, appointees either came from academic backgrounds or were well-respected practitioners with several years experience in appellate courts.
Laskin's federalist and liberal views were shared by Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, who recommended Laskin's appointment to the Court. The Constitution Act, 1982 expanded the role of the Court in Canadian society by the addition of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which broadened the scope of judicial review; the evolution from the Dickson court through to the Lamer court witnessed a continuing vigour in the protection of civil liberties. Lamer's criminal law background proved an influence on the number of criminal cases heard by the Court during his time as chief justice. Nonetheless, the Lamer court was more conservative with Charter rights, with only about a 1% success rate for Charter claimants. Lamer was succeeded as chief justice by Beverly McLachlin in January 2000, she is the first woman to hold that position. McLachlin's appointment resulted in a more centrist and unified Court. Dissenting and concurring opinions were fewer than during the Lamer Courts. With the 2005 appointments of Justices Louise Charron and Rosalie Abella, the court became the world's most gender-balanced national high court, four of its nine members being female.
Justice Marie Deschamps' retirement on 7 August 2012 caused the number to fall to three, however the appointment of Suzanne Côté on 1 December 2014 restored the number to four. After serving on the Court for 28 years, 259 days, McLachlin retired in December 2017, her successor as chief justice is Richard Wagner. The structure of the Canadian court system is pyramidal, a broad base being formed by the various provincial and territorial courts whose judges are appointed by the provincial or territorial governments. At the next level are the provinces' and territories' superior courts, where judges are appointed by the federal government. Judgments from the superior courts may be appealed to a still higher level, the provincial or territorial courts of appeal. Several federal courts exist: the Tax Court of Canada, the Federal Court, the Federal Court of Appeal, the Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada. Unlike the provincial superior courts, which exercise inherent or general jurisdiction, the federal courts' jurisdiction is limited by statute.
In all, there are over 1,000 federally appointed judges at various levels across Canada. The Supreme Court of Canada rests at the apex of the judicial pyramid; this institution hears appeals from the provincial courts of last resort the provincial or territorial courts of appeal, the Federal Court of Appeal, although in some matters appeals come straight from the trial courts, as in the case of publication bans and other orders that are otherwise not appealable. In most cases, permission to appeal must first be obtained from the court. Motions for leave to appeal to the Court are heard by a panel of three judges of the Court and a simple majority is determinative. By convention, this panel never explains why it grants or refuses leave in any particular case, but the Court hears cases of national importance or where the case allows the Court to settle an important issue of law. Leave is granted, meaning that for most litigants, provincial courts of appeal are courts of last resort, but leave to appeal is not required for some cases criminal cases and appeals from provincial references.
A final source of cases is the referral power of the federa
Constitution Act, 1867
The Constitution Act, 1867 is a major part of Canada's Constitution. The Act created a federal dominion and defines much of the operation of the Government of Canada, including its federal structure, the House of Commons, the Senate, the justice system, the taxation system; the British North America Acts, including this Act, were renamed in 1982 with the patriation of the Constitution. Amendments were made at this time: section 92A was added, giving provinces greater control over non-renewable natural resources; the Act begins with a preamble declaring that the three provinces New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and the Province of Canada have requested to form "one Dominion...with a Constitution similar in Principle to that of the United Kingdom". This description of the Constitution has proven important in its interpretation; as Peter Hogg wrote in Constitutional Law of Canada, some have argued that, since the United Kingdom had some freedom of expression in 1867, the preamble extended this right to Canada before the enactment of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982.
In New Brunswick Broadcasting Co. v. Nova Scotia, the leading Canadian case on parliamentary privilege, the Supreme Court of Canada grounded its 1993 decision on the preamble. Moreover, since the UK had a tradition of judicial independence, the Supreme Court ruled in the Provincial Judges Reference of 1997 that the preamble shows judicial independence in Canada is constitutionally guaranteed. Political scientist Rand Dyck has criticized the preamble, saying it is "seriously out of date", he claims the Act "lacks an inspirational introduction". The preamble to the Act is not the Constitution of Canada's only preamble; the Charter has a preamble. Part I consists of just two sections. Section 1 gives the short title of the law as Constitution Act, 1867. Section 2 indicates that all references to the Queen apply to all her heirs and successors; the Act establishes the Dominion of Canada by uniting the North American British "Provinces" of Canada, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia. Section 3 establishes that the union would take effect within six months of passage of the Act and Section 4 confirms "Canada" as the name of the country.
Section 5 lists the four provinces of the new federation. These are formed by dividing the former Province of Canada into two: its two subdivisions, Canada West and Canada East, renamed Ontario and Quebec become full provinces in Section 6. Section 7 confirms that the boundaries of New Brunswick are not changed, and Section 8 provides. Section 9 confirms that all executive powers remain with the Queen, as represented by the Governor General or an administrator of the government, as stated in Section 10. Section 11 creates the Queen's Privy Council for Canada. Section 12 states that the executive branches of the Provinces continue to exist and their power is exercised through the Lieutenant Governors, that the powers exercised by the federal government must be exercised through the Governor General, either with the advice of the privy council or alone. Section 13 defines the Governor General in Council as the Governor General acting with the advice of the Privy Council. Section 14 allows the Governor General to appoint deputies to exercise his powers in various parts of Canada.
The Commander-in-Chief of all armed forces in Canada continues with the Queen under Section 15. Section 16 declares Ottawa the capital of the new federation; the Parliament of Canada comprises the Queen and two chambers, as created by section 17. Section 18 defines its powers and privileges as being no greater than those of the British parliament. Section 19 states that Parliament's first session must begin six months after the passage of the Act and Section 20 holds that Parliament must hold a legislative session at least once every twelve months; the Senate has 105 Senators, most of whom represent one of four equal divisions: Ontario, the Maritime Provinces and the Western Provinces. Section 23 lays out the qualifications to become a Senator. Senators are appointed by the Governor General under Section 24, the first group of senators was proclaimed under section 25. Section 26 allows The Crown to add four or eight Senators at a time to the Senate, divided among the divisions, but according to section 27 no more senators can be appointed until, by death or retirement, the number of senators drops below the regular limit of 24 per division.
The maximum number of senators was set at 113, in Section 28. Senators are appointed for life, under Section 29, though they can resign under Section 30 and can be removed under the terms of section 31, in which case the vacancy can be filled by the Governor General. Section 33 gives the Senate the power to rule on its own disputes over vacancy; the Speaker of the Senate is appointed and dismissed by Governor General under Section 34. Quorum for the Senate is set at 15 senators by Section 35, voting procedures are set by Section 36; the composition of the Commons, under Section 37, consists of 30
Case citation is a system used by legal professionals to identify past court case decisions, either in series of books called reporters or law reports, or in a neutral style that identifies a decision regardless of where it is reported. Case citations are formatted differently in different jurisdictions, but contain the same key information. A legal citation is a "reference to a legal precedent or authority, such as a case, statute, or treatise, that either substantiates or contradicts a given position." Where cases are published on paper, the citation contains the following information: Court that issued the decision Report title Volume number Page, section, or paragraph number Publication yearIn some report series, for example in England and some in Canada, volumes are not numbered independently of the year: thus the year and volume number are required to identify which book of the series has the case reported within its covers. In such citations, it is usual in these jurisdictions to apply square brackets "" to the year.
The Internet brought with it the opportunity for courts to publish their decisions on websites and most published court decisions now appear in that way. They can be found through many national and other websites, such as WorldLII, that are operated by members of the Free Access to Law Movement; the resulting flood of unpaginated information has led to numbering of paragraphs and the adoption of a medium-neutral citation system. This contains the following information: Year of decision Abbreviated title of the court Decision number Rather than utilizing page numbers for pinpoint references, which would depend upon particular printers and browsers, pinpoint quotations refer to paragraph numbers; the conjunction "versus" is abbreviated to "v" in Commonwealth countries and to "v." in the United States. In common law countries with an adversarial system of justice, the names of the opposing parties are separated in the case title by the abbreviation v—usually written as v in Commonwealth countries and always as v. in the US.
The abbreviation represents the Latin word versus. When case titles are read out loud, the v can be pronounced, depending on the context, as and, versus, or vee. Commonwealth countries follow English legal style: Civil cases are pronounced with and. For example, Smith v Jones would be pronounced "Smith and Jones". Criminal cases are pronounced with against. For example, R v Smith would be pronounced "the Crown against Smith"; the Latin words Rex and versus are all rendered into English. Versus and vee are incorrect. In the United States, there is no consensus on the pronunciation of the abbreviation v; this has led to much confusion about the pronunciation and spelling of court cases: Versus is most used, leading some newspapers to use the common abbreviation vs. in place of the legal abbreviation v. Vee is heard but is not as common. Against is a matter of personal style. For example, Warren E. Burger and John Paul Stevens preferred to announce cases at the Supreme Court with against, and is used by some law professors, but other law professors regard it as an affectation.
During oral arguments in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the participants demonstrated the lack of consensus by using different pronunciations of v. Solicitor General Ken Starr managed to use all three of the most common American pronunciations interchangeably: Kenneth W. Starr: This is the process of analysis, quite familiar to the Court lengthily laid out by Justice Harlan in his dissent in Poe versus Ullman, adumbrated in his concurring opinion in Griswold against Connecticut.... Well, I think that, the necessary consequence of Roe vee Wade. Legal citation in Australia mirrors the methods of citation used in England. A used guide to Australian legal citation is the Australian Guide to Legal Citation, published jointly by the Melbourne University Law Review and the Melbourne Journal of International Law; the standard case citation format in Australia is: As in Canada, there has been divergence among citation styles. There exist commercial citation guides published by Butterworths and other legal publishing companies, academic citation styles and court citation styles.
Each court in Australia may cite the same case differently. There is presently a movement in convergence to the comprehensive academic citation style of the Australian Guide to Legal Citation published jointly by the Melbourne University Law Review and the Melbourne Journal of International Law. Australian courts and tribunals have now adopted a neutral citation standard for case law; the format provides a naming system that does not depend on the publication of the case in a law report. Most cases are now published on AustLII using neutral citations; the standard format looks like this: So the above-mentioned Mabo case would be cited like this: Mabo v Queensland HCA 23. There is a unique court identifier code for most courts; the court and tribunal identifiers include: Australian Guide to Legal Citation There are a number of citation standards in Canada. Many legal publishing companies and schools have their own standard for citation. Since the late 1990s, much of the legal community has converged to a single standard—formulated in The Canadian Guide to Uniform Legal Citation known as the "McGill Guide" after the McGill Law Journal, which first published it.
The following format reflects this standard: Hunter v Southam, 2 SCR 145. Broken into its component parts, the format is: The Style of Cause is i
William Ian Corneil Binnie is a former puisne justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, serving from 1998 to 2011. Of the justices appointed to the Supreme Court in recent years, he is one of the few to have never sat as a judge prior to his appointment, he was described by the Toronto Star as "one of the strongest hands on the court." Binnie was born in Quebec. He graduated from McGill University in 1960, where he was a member of the Kappa Alpha Society and the Scarlet Key Honor Society, went on the study law at Cambridge University and the University of Toronto, he was called to the Ontario bar in 1967 and practiced private law at Wright & McTaggart and its successor firms until 1982, at which point he went to work as Associate Deputy Minister of Justice for the Government of Canada. In 1986, he went on to practice at McCarthy Tétrault, until he was appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada in 1998, replacing Justice John Sopinka. Just as with his predecessor, Binnie had never sat as a judge before his appointment to the Supreme Court.
Prior to his appointment, he had argued numerous cases in front of the Court. For example, he was lead counsel for the defendant in the notable case of R. v. Wholesale Travel Inc. In May 2011, Binnie announced his plans to retire as early as August 30, 2011, unless there was a delay in the appointment of his replacement, he continued until Michael Moldaver and Andromache Karakatsanis were sworn in on October 27, 2011, replacing him and Louise Charron, who had left the court on August 30, 2011. On November 16, 2011, the New Zealand Justice Minister Simon Power announced that Binnie had been selected to review the David Bain case and Bain's request for compensation for wrongful conviction and imprisonment. In April 2012, Binnie joined Lenczner Slaght Royce Smith Griffin, a Toronto litigation boutique, as counsel, he joined Arbitration Place as Resident Arbitrator, presiding over both Canadian and international arbitrations. In 2011, Binnie was asked by New Zealand Minister of Justice Simon Power to investigate a compensation claim made by David Bain, acquitted in a 2009 retrial after spending 13 years in prison for murdering his family.
The case made frequent headlines in New Zealand and divided public opinion because of the drawn-out nature of the appeals process, which went all the way to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in London. After a 12-month investigation, Binnie concluded that the original police investigation was incompetent, declared Bain to be innocent on the'balance of probabilities' and recommended he should be paid compensation; the new Justice Minister Judith Collins rejected the findings of the report, saying it lacked robust reasoning and showed a misunderstanding of New Zealand law. This led to a public spat between the minister and Justice Binnie, who accused Collins of politicising the process. Without letting Bain's legal team know what was in Binnie's report, Collins said the government would be getting a second opinion on compensation, a decision Bain supporters slammed as a double standard. Binnie criticised Collins for refusing to give a copy of the report to Bain's legal team and for leaking details of his report to the media.
Colleagues in Canada rallied to his defence. The President of the Canadian Bar Association, Robert Brun, QC, said Binnie "is held in the highest esteem by both the legal community and the judiciary for his integrity and experience, he is praised for his honesty and intellect, his reputation extends well beyond Canada's borders."Former High Court Justice Dr Robert Fisher QC was commissioned to do a peer review and stated in his findings that the report was well organised and comprehensive but that Binnie went beyond his mandate and authority and had made fundamental errors of principle. That Binnie had criticized named individuals in his report without giving them the opportunity to respond. Fisher commented that in assessing misconduct by authorities, Binnie had made fundamental errors in principle. Former Australian High Court Justice Ian Callinan was commissioned by the New Zealand Government to conduct a fresh enquiry. Due to Binnie's background in business and corporate law, he has written many of the judgments in those areas of law.
Binnie nonetheless felt in R. v. Sinclair that a 2010 majority of the court was too favourable to the Crown against the right of the accused to counsel under Section 10 of the Charter. In R. v. Tessling, Binnie wrote a judgment to circumscribe the Section 8 Charter rights of individuals, in sharp contradistinction to Kyllo v. United States. R. v. Marshall are two decisions given by the Supreme Court of Canada on a single case regarding a treaty right to fish. Alex Cameron, Crown counsel for the government of Nova Scotia wrote the book "Power without Law", critical of the judgement written by Justice Binnie. In the book the Supreme court is accused of Judicial Activism. R. v. Stone The accused had admitted that he had stabbed his wife 47 times and fled to Mexico but turned himself in to the police a few weeks later. Stone had tried to run his wife over with his Pickup truck. Justice Binnie dissented from the majority verdict of guilty claiming the accused was not guilty by reason of automatism.
Binnie believed with automatism the onus is on the prosecution's ability to prove its case and that the accused should not bear the burden of proving automatism on the balance of probabilities. Reasons of the Supreme Court of Canada by Justice Binnie Supreme Court of Canada biography Lenczner Slaght profile Speech by Binnie on Advocacy