Ian Peach
Biographic Data
| ID | 5757289 |
|---|---|
| NAME | Ian Peach |
| GIVEN NAMES | Ian |
| FAMILY NAME | Peach |
| SIGNATURE | PEACH I |
| AFFILIATIONS | University of New Brunswick |
| VERIFIED | No |
| TOTAL WORKS | 3 |
| TOTAL CITATIONS | 5 |
| WORKS AS AUTHOR | 3 |
| WORKS AS EDITOR | 0 |
| FIRST PUBLICATION YEAR | 2011 |
| LATEST PUBLICATION YEAR | 2016 |
| H-INDEX | 1 |
Who speaks for whom? Implementing the Crown's duty to consult in the case of divided Aboriginal political structures
The Supreme Court of Canada has determined that the Crown has a duty to consult Aboriginal peoples on government decisions that may adversely affect their rights, but the Court did not define who the Crown should consult on behalf of Aboriginal people when two or more groups claim the right to speak for them. For government officials attempting to fulfil the Crown's duty, this can create challenges. This article reviews the jurisprudence and scho…
Reference re Supreme Court Act, ss 5 and 6 — Expanding the Constitution of Canada
On March 21, 2014, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) answered two questions pertaining to Federal Court Justice Marc Nadon’s appointment to the Court
Finding Your Allies Where You Can
While it has been valuable to Aboriginal peoples to have the courts as allies in their fight for state recognition, it is worth asking whether the slow, expensive, incremental process of achieving recognition through litigation is really the most efficient, let alone just, policy development process. Metis, Non-Status Indians, and Aboriginal women have all determined that litigation can be a useful strategy for achieving state recognition of thei…
Who speaks for whom? Implementing the Crown's duty to consult in the case of divided Aboriginal political structures
The Supreme Court of Canada has determined that the Crown has a duty to consult Aboriginal peoples on government decisions that may adversely affect their rights, but the Court did not define who the Crown should consult on behalf of Aboriginal people when two or more groups claim the right to speak for them. For government officials attempting to fulfil the Crown's duty, this can create challenges. This article reviews the jurisprudence and scho…
Finding Your Allies Where You Can
While it has been valuable to Aboriginal peoples to have the courts as allies in their fight for state recognition, it is worth asking whether the slow, expensive, incremental process of achieving recognition through litigation is really the most efficient, let alone just, policy development process. Metis, Non-Status Indians, and Aboriginal women have all determined that litigation can be a useful strategy for achieving state recognition of thei…
Reference re Supreme Court Act, ss 5 and 6 — Expanding the Constitution of Canada
On March 21, 2014, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) answered two questions pertaining to Federal Court Justice Marc Nadon’s appointment to the Court
Who speaks for whom? Implementing the Crown's duty to consult in the case of divided Aboriginal political structures
The Supreme Court of Canada has determined that the Crown has a duty to consult Aboriginal peoples on government decisions that may adversely affect their rights, but the Court did not define who the Crown should consult on behalf of Aboriginal people when two or more groups claim the right to speak for them. For government officials attempting to fulfil the Crown's duty, this can create challenges. This article reviews the jurisprudence and scho…
Law (3 works) · Political science (3 works) · Multicultural Socio-Legal Studies (2 works) · Supreme court (2 works) · Canadian Identity and History (1 work) · Certiorari (1 work) · Concurring opinion (1 work) · Constitution (1 work) · Court of equity (1 work) · Crown (dentistry (1 work)