Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-94d59 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-29T10:07:04.969Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Open Bill of Rights: A Reply to Carole Stewart

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 June 2010

R. N. McLaughlin Q.C.
Affiliation:
Toronto

Abstract

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Notes—Discussions
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Philosophical Association 1974

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 581 note 1 A Bill of Rights: A Reply to R. N. McLaughlin”, Dialogue, Vol. XII, p. 676Google Scholar.

page 582 note 2 On a Bill of Rights”, Dialogue, Vol. VIII, p. 433Google Scholar.

page 582 note 1 R.S.C., 1970, App. III.

page 582 note 2 See my comments “R v. Smythe — The Canadian Bill of Rights — ‘Equality before the law’ — The Meaning of ‘Discrimination’”, Canadian Bar Review, 1973, p. 517 and “The Attorney General of Canada v. Lavell and Equality Before the Law”, Chitty's Law Journal, Vol. 21 (1973), p. 282Google Scholar.

page 583 note 1 Op. cit. p. 440.

page 584 note 1 The Attorney General of Canada v. Lavell, [1972] 1 O.R. p. 390, 22 D.L.R. (3d) p. 188, 38 D.L.R. (3d) p. 481.

page 584 note 2 If the decision of Osier J. on the same point is included, the count becomes six to six. See Bedard v. Isaac et al [1972] 2 O.R. p. 391.

page 584 note 3 Op. cit. p. 677.

page 584 note 4 (1972) 26 D.L.R. (3d) p. 611.