Kent McNeil – författare

In 1888, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council ruled in St. Catherine's Milling and Lumber Company v. The Queen, a case involving the Saulteaux people's land rights in Ontario. This precedent-setting case would define the legal contours of Aboriginal title in Canada for almost a hundred years, despite the racist assumptions about Indigenous peoples at the heart of the case. In Flawed Precedent, preeminent legal scholar Kent McNeil provides a compelling account of this contentious case. He begins by delving into the historical and ideological context of the 1880s. He then examines the trial in detail, demonstrating how prejudicial attitudes towards Indigenous peoples influenced the decision. He further discusses the effects that St. Catherine's had on law and policy until the 1970s when its authority was finally questioned in Calder, then in Delgamuukw, Marshall/Bernard, Tsilhqot'in, and other key rulings. He also provides an informative analysis of the current judicial understanding of Aboriginal title in Canada, now driven by evidence of Indigenous law and land use rather than by the discarded prejudicial assumptions of a bygone era.

In 1888, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council ruled in St. Catherine's Milling and Lumber Company v. The Queen, a case involving the Saulteaux people's land rights in Ontario. This precedent-setting case would define the legal contours of Aboriginal title in Canada for almost a hundred years, despite the racist assumptions about Indigenous peoples at the heart of the case. In Flawed Precedent, preeminent legal scholar Kent McNeil provides a compelling account of this contentious case. He begins by delving into the historical and ideological context of the 1880s. He then examines the trial in detail, demonstrating how prejudicial attitudes towards Indigenous peoples influenced the decision. He further discusses the effects that St. Catherine's had on law and policy until the 1970s when its authority was finally questioned in Calder, then in Delgamuukw, Marshall/Bernard, Tsilhqot'in, and other key rulings. He also provides an informative analysis of the current judicial understanding of Aboriginal title in Canada, now driven by evidence of Indigenous law and land use rather than by the discarded prejudicial assumptions of a bygone era.

Should Canadians have the right to medical assistance in dying? If so, under what conditions? Deciding on Death delves into the legal and political aspects of these controversial questions. In the early 1990s, Sue Rodriguez unsuccessfully challenged the criminalization of assisted dying. The Supreme Court of Canada subsequently reversed its position in a 2015 case initially brought by the family of Kay Carter, who had travelled abroad for access to an assisted death. Kent McNeil and Wayne Sumner not only analyze the landmark Rodriguez and Carter decisions but also contextualize them within legal and political history and carry the story forward to the present day. Legalization of medically assisted dying has finally given many Canadians with incurable medical conditions that cause them intolerable suffering the ability to choose the manner and timing of their death. Over fifteen thousand people per year now pursue that option. This timely book explains how we got here and the decisions that still lie ahead.