Policy Forum: Confusion Worse Confounded—The Supreme Court’s GAAR Decisions
نویسنده
چکیده
This article analyzes the Supreme Court of Canada’s decisions in Canada Trustco v. The Queen and Mathew v. The Queen, the first cases heard by the court involving the application of the general anti-avoidance rule (GAAR). The article begins with a review of the case law, followed by an examination of the Supreme Court’s statements with respect to statutory interpretation in general. The heart of the article deals with the court’s interpretation of the GAAR and its application in the two cases, and concludes with some speculation about the implications of the decisions for future cases
منابع مشابه
The Supreme Court’s “non-transsubstantive” Class Action
I. THE ROBERTS COURT’S COMPETING CLASS ACTION CASES ... 1628 II. THE COURT’S “NON-TRANSSUBSTANTIVE” CLASS ACTION DECISIONS ............................................................................. 1636 A. The Court’s “Non-Transsubstantive” Rule 23 Jurisprudence .............. 1637 1. Substantive Lawmaking .................................................... 1637 2. Composite Judgments: Subs...
متن کاملUsing Twitter to Study Public Discourse in the Wake of Judicial Decisions: Public Reactions to the Supreme Court’s Same-Sex Marriage Cases∗
At the intersection of behavioral and institutional studies of policy-making lie a series of questions about how elite choices affect mass public opinion. Scholars have considered how judicial decisions—especially US Supreme Court decisions—affect individuals’ support for specific policy positions. These studies yield a series of competing findings. Whereas past research uses opinion surveys to...
متن کاملDucking Trouble: Congressionally Induced Selection Bias in the Supreme Court's Agenda
Existing studies of congressional influence on Supreme Court decision making have largely failed to recognize the fact that the Court has a discretionary docket. We model the effects of congressional preferences on the certiorari decision and find strong evidence that the Court’s constitutional agenda is systematically influenced by Congress. The Court’s docket is significantly less likely to c...
متن کاملConsensus and Unanimity at the Supreme Court of Canada
Empirical studies of judicial decision-making tend to focus on explaining why individual judges often come to different conclusions. The dominant understanding of decision-making on the U.S. Supreme Court is the ideologically based policy preferences of the justices, with related studies showing that American justices often make strategic choices to ensure the Court’s decisions reflect their pr...
متن کاملHistoric Times v. Sullivan and Gertz v. Welch Supreme Court Decisions and Online Social Media Libel Law
This article re-examines two historic Supreme Court’s decisions—the 1964 Times v. Sullivan and the 1974 Gertz v. Welch—as they apply to the digital era. The Court’s decision in Sullivan established the federal legal guidelines for a victim to prove a libel case including actual malice. In Gertz v. Welch the Court established three categories of public figures who must prove actual malice in a l...
متن کامل