Journal Updates

New articles from the Canadian Journal of Law and Society and Criminal Law Quarterly are now available for Law Society members upon request. For a pdf copy of these, or other legal journal articles email us at library@lawsociety.mb.ca.

Canadian Journal of Law and Society

  • Introduction 36 No. 2 Can. J.L. & Soc’y 189 Dia Dabby, David Koussens
  • Our Culture, Our Heritage, Our Values: Whose Culture, Whose Heritage, Whose Values? 36 No. 2 Can. J.L. & Soc’y 203 Lori G. Beaman

“This article reflects on the question of how culture and religion enter legal cases and public debates about the place of majoritarian religious symbols in diverse societies that have some democratic will to inclusion. In the context of the new diversity, the article considers how the articulation of “our culture and heritage” as a strategy for preserving “formerly” religious symbols and practices in public spaces excludes particular groups from the narrative of who “we” are as a nation. The reader is invited to consider how challenges to such symbols and practices might be articulated as a challenge to privilege and power and that a refusal to acknowledge those power relations puts the reputation of democracy and human rights at risk.”

  • Formalizing Secularism as a Regime of Restrictions and Protections: The Case of Quebec (Canada) and Geneva (Switzerland) 36 No. 2 Can. J.L. & Soc’y 283 Amélie Barras
  • Voting on Belonging 36 No. 2 Can. J.L. & Soc’y 263 Dia Dabby , Assistant Professor, Département des sciences juridiques, UQAM, Dabby.dia@uqam.ca
  • Introduction 36 No. 2 Can. J.L. & Soc’y 195 Dia Dabby, David Koussens
  • L’État Canadien et la Reconnaissance des Droits Religieux Autochtones  36 No. 2 Can. J.L. & Soc’y 245 Claude Gélinas
  • La Loi sur la Laïcité de L’État et les Conditions de la Fondation Juridique D’Un Modèle Interculturel au Québec 36 No. 2 Can. J.L. & Soc’y 323 Louis-Philippe Lampron
  • Marge ou Crève 36 No. 2 Can. J.L. & Soc’y 225 Xavier Delgrange
  • L’Effacement de la Laïcité Libérale en France. De la Séparation du Politique et du Religieux vers la Promotion du ⪡ Vivre-Ensemble ⪢ 36 No. 2 Can. J.L. & Soc’y 303
  • Convergence Culturelle et Légistique: Pour un Modèle Québécois D’Intégration Distinct Consacré par une Loi-Cadre 36 No. 2 Can. J.L. & Soc’y 339 Guillaume Rousseau

Criminal Law Quarterly

  • No More Extensions of Criminal Law Through Injunctions? Policing Blockades 69 C.L.Q. 402 Kent W. Roach
  • The Objectivity of Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt 69 C.L.Q. 513 Gerald T.G. Seniuk

“The thesis postulated here explains how the vague standard of “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” can be understood as an objective standard of proof even though the decision is based on a subjective feeling of certitude. In the main, the objective nature of the reasonable doubt standard of proof can only be discerned as patterns emerge over time through the decisions made by individual judges in different cases. Most guilty verdicts depend on the trier’s strong subjective feeling of certitude about the guilt of the accused, a subjective certitude that is much closer to absolute certainty than it is to a probability, but still short of absolute certainty. This subjective feeling of certitude is constrained from slipping into arbitrariness or whimsy by the legal requirements that the verdict is correct in law, is reasonable, and is supported by the evidence. However, even with those constraints, there is room for uncertainty and disagreement. What elevates the subjective feeling of certitude to the level of objective proof is the agreement of a defined group of reasonable, informed people. In other words, the objectivity of proof beyond a reasonable doubt is a socially constructed objectivity that is defined by a methodology of agreement. This methodology of agreement is similar to what sociologists refer to as an objectivation and epistemologists as objectification.”

  • Requiem for a Representative Jury? So Long Peremptory Challenge and Hello Expanded Judicial Stand By  69 C.L.Q. 436 Brian Manarin
  • Notes and Comments R. v. Griffith and R. v. Leonard : A Dangerous Assumption in Recent Right to Counsel Cases Criminal Law Quarterly 2021 69 C.L.Q. 404 Kent W. Roach
  • Notes and Comments Revisiting the Air of Reality Test Within the Context of the Defence of Provocation: A Case Comment on the Court of Appeal for Ontario’s Decision in R. v. Alas Criminal Law Quarterly 2021 69 C.L.Q. 411 Kent W. Roach
  • Jury Selection Is Not Random Selection: A Methodological Critique of R. v. Kokopenace and a Recommended Solution  69 C.L.Q. 464 Michelle I. Bertrand, David Ireland and Richard Jochelson