Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=921277
 
 

Footnotes (32)



 


 



Separating Minimal Impairment from Balancing: A Comment on R. v. Sharpe (B.C.C.A.


Guy Davidov


Hebrew University of Jerusalem - Faculty of Law


Review of Constitutional Studies, Vol. 5, No. 195, 2000

Abstract:     
At the center of Canadian constitutional law -- as in many other countries -- is the principle of proportionality. It is understood to include three sub-tests: rational relation, minimum impairment and balancing between the deleterious and the salutary effects of the law. In practice the courts concentrate on the second test. It is argued that in fact they often perform balancing when applying the minimal impairment test, but refrain from explicitly acknowledging it, because it appears less legitimate. The constitutional challenge in R. v. Sharpe to the child pornography legislation is used as an example to illustrate the argument.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 18

Keywords: charter, section 1, limitation clause, proportionality, minimal impairment

Accepted Paper Series





Download This Paper

Date posted: July 31, 2006  

Suggested Citation

Davidov, Guy, Separating Minimal Impairment from Balancing: A Comment on R. v. Sharpe (B.C.C.A.. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=921277

Contact Information

Guy Davidov (Contact Author)
Hebrew University of Jerusalem - Faculty of Law ( email )
Mt. Scopus
Jerusalem, 91905
Israel

Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 875
Downloads: 108
Download Rank: 154,145
Footnotes:  32

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo8 in 0.250 seconds