If you'd like to add this set to your collection and start rememberizing it, login to your account now. Of course, if you don't already have an account you should register for free right away!

Front-side Reverse-side
Adjudication The process by which the courts resolve disputes.
Extrinsic Evidence Facts placed before a court that do not arise directly from the case at bar. Two type of extrinsic evidence are discussed in this chapter: social science evidence relating to the policy impact of a particular law and evidence of legislative intent in the drafting of the impugned law.
Impugned When a court is asked to rule on the constitutionality of a particular law, that legal provision is said to be this, In a Charter case, one or more parties before the court seeks to prove that the law is unconstitutional, on the grounds that it conflicts with a Charter right or freedom. The term applies to whether or not the court agrees tat the law is unconstitutional.
Interpretivist Judicial Review The reliance by judges on evidence of legislative intent, as a guide to interpreting constitutional principles. Judges try and to determine what the original framers of the constitution were trying to accomplish.
Judicial Activism Activist judges use there policy-making power to overturn or effectively rewrite ordinary statutes and constitutional texts. Activist judges are more likely to to put there own stamp on the law through judicial review than to defer to the legislative and executive branches.
Judicial Deference’s Also called judicial conservatism, judges defer to parliament, upholding most or all of the laws passed by the legislative branch and taking a narrow (interprevtist) approach to constitutional law.
Litigation Seeking the resolution of a dispute in court.
Non interpretivist judicial review Believe they are not bound by the intentions of the framers of the constitution when interpreting cases. They expand or contract its meaning to cover circumstances that could not have been foreseen by time of adoption.
Nullification When a court finds an impugned law to be unconstitutional it can declare that law to be null or void. This power to nullify law is also referred to as striking down. (section 52 in constitution)
Plaintiff Must demonstrate that his Charter rights or freedoms, or those of the representive group have been infringed. The court then proceeds to consider wither the law should be upheld as a "reasonable limit" under section 1. Eg, police investigations—there is no section 1 analysis.
Public interest Litigation In the Charter context, this involves a legal challenge to the constitutionality of a particular law or program that a specific government official violated the rights or freedoms of the plaintiff.
Reading down When courts find that an impugned law violates the charter under a certain set of circumstances, it can be set out a narrow interpretation of that law that prevents such a violation in the future. The application of the alw is restricted, but not struck down all together.
Reading in When a court finds that a particular group has unfairly excluded from constitutional protection it can use the remedial power under section 52. In effect, the court rewrites the Charter—Section 15, to broaden the rights guaranteed. The actual wording of the Constitution does not change, but lawyers and judges are bound to interpret its provisions as though they have been formally amended.