Is this you? As a journalist, you can create a free Muck Rack account to customize your profile, list your contact preferences, and upload a portfolio of your best work.
Claim your profile
Articles by Asher Honickman
Supreme Court Law Review, 3rd Series, Volume 8
Contemporary Legal Realism — The Honourable Malcolm H. Rowe The Statutory Interpretation Jurisprudence of Sir Lyman Duff — Mark P. Mancini Foreign Law and the Charter: Unresolved Issues After Québec Inc.
Asher Honickman: The Supreme Court is trying to radically rewrite Canada’s constitutional order
Commentary 31 July 2024 Prime Minister Justin Trudeau greets Richard Wagner, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada at the Senate of Canada Building in Ottawa, Sept. 23, 2020. Justin Tang/The Canadian Press. Last week, the Supreme Court of Canada released a decision that shook the foundations of Canada’s constitutional structure.
Destabilizing the Doctrine: A Critique of Uber v. Heller
At the end of June, the Supreme Court of Canada released one of its most important contract law decisions of the last decade: Uber Technologies Inc. v. Heller [“Uber”]. The issue in Uber was whether the arbitration clause in the standard Uber services agreement was valid. The clause required the arbitration of any dispute through mediation and arbitration in the Netherlands, along with an up-front administrative and filing fee of US $14,500.
Canada needs a New National Policy
Opinion: When Macdonald introduced the National Policy in the 1870s, its goal was both economic and political. Something similar is needed today Article content By Asher Honickman and Ben Woodfinden Advertisement 2 This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.
Opinion: In a free society, the government can, and sometimes must, direct the police
Asher Honickman and Leonid Sirota: Police independence is an important concept, but it must be interpreted relatively narrowly • • You can save this article by registering for free here. Or sign-in if you have an account. Article content In these pages last week, we discussed the central importance of the rule of law and its implications for the pipeline protesters.
Opinion: What the rule of law is, and why it matters - for everyone
Hostility to the rule of law is in intellectual fashion. There is an abundant supply of polite opinion to the effect that, while it may be referenced in the preamble to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the rule of law is nothing more than slogan for right-wingers, or worse.
Deconstructing Section 28
Professor Kerri Froc has written a thoughtful guest post for Double Aspect, in which she argues that s. 28 of the Charter is not merely an interpretive provision, but is rather a substantive and justiciable section in its own right. The implication if she is correct should not be understated. Section 28 states: Notwithstanding anything in this Charter, the rights and freedoms referred to in it are guaranteed equally to male and female persons.
ARL Celebrates Five Years and Charitable Status
Five years ago, I founded Advocates for the Rule of Law with a small group of like-minded lawyers.
The Original Meaning of Military Law
Advocates for the Rule of Law returned to the Supreme Court of Canada last month in the Stillman and Beaudry appeals to make important submissions on the topic of stare decisis. I attended with my co-counsel, Adam Goldenberg and Peter Grbac. Mr. Goldenberg’s oral submissions were stellar and the panel kept him up for an additional few minutes to ask him various pointed questions.
Unearthing Canadian Originalism: Reflections on my Conversation with Justice Stratas
Earlier this month, I had the true privilege of taking part in a discussion with Justice David Stratas of the Federal Court of Appeal, who is one of Canada’s most prominent jurists, on the subject of statutory and constitutional interpretation. The conversation was part of the Runnymede Society’s annual Law & Freedom Conference.
Discussing the Notwithstanding Clause
I had the real privilege today of appearing on Your Morning on CTV to chat about the notwithstanding clause with host Ben Mulroney. In particular, we discussed the threat of premier-designate, François Legault to invoke s.33 of the Charter preemptively in legislation that would ban public servants and officials from wearing religious symbols. The full interview can be accessed here.
Advocates for the Rule of Law
One of the main arguments in Canada in favour of the “living tree” is that it has deep roots in our constitutional tradition. As the Supreme Court of Canada said in Reference Re Same Sex Marriage, the living tree is “one of the most fundamental principles of Canadian constitutional interpretation.”[1] The argument goes something like this: beginning with the famous “Persons case” of 1929 (Edwards v.
Comeau is a Casualty of Confused Doctrine
The Supreme Court delivered a bizarre decision last week in R.v. Comeau.
Has the Supreme Court Moved Beyond the “Living Tree”?
One of the first things law students are taught is that our Constitution is a “living tree.” The Supreme Court has said that the living tree doctrine, which holds that our Constitution must be capable of evolving to meet new social realities, is “one of the most fundamental principles of Canadian constitutional interpretation” (See Reference Re Same Sex Marriage, at para 22).
Michael Colle’s bill to regulate personal injury lawyers is misguided: Opinion
Personal injury litigation has come under the microscope over the last few months, specifically with regard to advertising and fees. Most recently, MPP Michael Colle has put forward a private member’s bill that would require every personal injury advertisement to be approved by the Law Society, cap contingency fees at 15 per cent, and outright prohibit referral fees. Bill 103 is undoubtedly a well-intended measure to address a very real problem.
Honickman, Soupcoff & Baron: Safeguarding the rule of law
The rule of law is a foundational principle of the Canadian state. It means that all government officials — from legislators, to administrators, to judges — are subject, and subordinate, to the law. At the heart of this concept is the principle of “constitutionalism” — the notion that all power, including the power to amend the Constitution, is derived from, and limited by, the Constitution.
Why the Magna Carta Is Still Important
ASSOCIATED PRESS Magna Carta turned 800 this week. After eight centuries, it remains the foundational text of Anglo-American law.Borne out of a bitter dispute between King John and his aggrieved barons in the spring of 1215, the "Great Charter" scarcely resembles any modern human rights instrument. It did not grant freedom of expression and religion, or even life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Asher Honickman: A troubling decision on the ‘right to strike’
Last week, the Supreme Court of Canada released what is arguably its most troubling decision of the 21st century. In *Saskatchewan Federation of Labour v. Saskatchewan*, a 5-2 majority of the Court held that there is a constitutional right to strike, even for certain services that the government deems essential. In putting forth this ruling, our highest court has removed a significant policy question from the realm of democratic choice.
How to Reform the Senate Without a Constitutional Amendment
This article exists as part of the online archive for HuffPost Canada, which closed in 2021. The Supreme Court of Canada's recent decision in Reference Re Senate Reform has irked a great many Canadians who had hoped that our highest court would bless democratic reform in the Red Chamber. On virtually every question before it -- from term limits to democratizing the selection process -- the Supreme Court said no.
Show More
loading
Actions
Is this you?
As a journalist, you can create a free Muck Rack account to customize your profile, list your contact preferences, and upload a portfolio of your best work.Get in touch with Asher
Contact Asher, search articles and posts on X, monitor coverage, and track replies from one place.
Learn more about Muck Rack