No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The Open Bill of Rights: A Reply to Carole Stewart
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 09 June 2010
Abstract
An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Notes—Discussions
- Information
- Dialogue: Canadian Philosophical Review / Revue canadienne de philosophie , Volume 13 , Issue 3 , September 1974 , pp. 581 - 585
- Copyright
- Copyright © Canadian Philosophical Association 1974
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.