{"title":"最高法院纠正了加拿大法律的错误","authors":"Mohammud Jaamae Hafeez-Baig, Jordan English","doi":"10.1080/14729342.2017.1332897","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT In Canada (Attorney General) v Fairmont Hotels Inc 2016 SCC 56 the Supreme Court of Canada corrected a wrong turn in the Canadian law of rectification, returning it to a position of harmony with the approach taken in English and Australian law. This note examines the case and explores the position adopted in two leading Commonwealth jurisdictions: England and Australia.","PeriodicalId":35148,"journal":{"name":"Oxford University Commonwealth Law Journal","volume":"17 1","pages":"144 - 151"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/14729342.2017.1332897","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Supreme Court rectifies a wrong turn in Canadian law\",\"authors\":\"Mohammud Jaamae Hafeez-Baig, Jordan English\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/14729342.2017.1332897\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT In Canada (Attorney General) v Fairmont Hotels Inc 2016 SCC 56 the Supreme Court of Canada corrected a wrong turn in the Canadian law of rectification, returning it to a position of harmony with the approach taken in English and Australian law. This note examines the case and explores the position adopted in two leading Commonwealth jurisdictions: England and Australia.\",\"PeriodicalId\":35148,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Oxford University Commonwealth Law Journal\",\"volume\":\"17 1\",\"pages\":\"144 - 151\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-01-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/14729342.2017.1332897\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Oxford University Commonwealth Law Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/14729342.2017.1332897\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Oxford University Commonwealth Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14729342.2017.1332897","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
The Supreme Court rectifies a wrong turn in Canadian law
ABSTRACT In Canada (Attorney General) v Fairmont Hotels Inc 2016 SCC 56 the Supreme Court of Canada corrected a wrong turn in the Canadian law of rectification, returning it to a position of harmony with the approach taken in English and Australian law. This note examines the case and explores the position adopted in two leading Commonwealth jurisdictions: England and Australia.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
