Defining The Parameters Of Limitation Periods In Personal Injury Actions

A limitation period is a stated period of time, the expiry of which extinguishes a party’s legal remedy and forbids the commencement of a legal action. Each province in Canada has general statutes of limitations and many provincial and federal statutes contain limitation periods applicable to a variety of causes of actions. Traditionally, limitation periods have been strictly enforced. More recently, the subject of when time begins to run has received greater attention from our courts.

The discoverability rule has evolved fairly recently in our civil jurisprudence.1 It gives relief in certain factual situations by extending a limitation period. According to the discoverability rule, a limitation period begins to run when the material facts upon which an action is based have been discovered, or ought to have been discovered by the plaintiff through the exercise of due diligence. The effect of the rule is to postpone the running of time until a reasonable person, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, would discover the facts necessary to maintain the action.2 It is a general rule applied to avoid injustice.

It is now over two years since the Supreme Court of Canada upheld the Ontario Court of Appeal’s decision in Peixeiro v. Haberman. Justice Major in Peixeiro adopted Taddle’s J. A.’s statement in Fehr v. Jacob (1993), 14 C.C.L.T. (2d) 200 (Man. C.A.) at 206, which is as follows:

In my opinion, the judge-made discoverability rule is nothing more than a rule of construction. Whenever a statute requires an action to be commenced within a specified time from the happening of a specific event, the statutory language must be construed. When time runs from “the accrual of the cause of action” or from some other event which can be construed as occurring only when the injured party has knowledge of the injury sustained, the judge-made discoverability rule applies. But, when time runs from an event which clearly occurs without regard to the injured party’s knowledge, the judge-made discoverability rule may not extend the period the legislature has prescribed.

In Peixeiro the court concluded that the limitation period under the Ontario Highway Traffic Act did not start to run in a personal injury action arising out of an automobile accident until the plaintiff discovered facts that could sustain a claim that his or her injuries met the threshold under the Insurance Act.

Since Peixeiro, the discoverability rule has enjoyed broad application in Ontario in motor vehicle actions and actions against municipalities and the provincial crown. As such there is now a body of jurisprudence on the scope and application of Peixeiro. The purpose of this paper is to review the way Ontario courts have applied Peixeiro in the context of personal injury litigation so that the parameters of the present authorities in the area of motor vehicle actions and actions against municipalities and the provincial crown can be better understood and defined

Do You Need An Immigration Lawyer Or Can You Do It By Yourself

Immigration law is one of the most complex areas that there is in the law field. And not only is it complicated but it can change without warning and often does. Do you need an immigration lawyer? Consider the facts.

You Could Do It

You could attempt the immigration process without an immigration lawyer, but do you really want to? How interested are you in learning all the ins and outs of immigration law on your own? Do you want to risk making mistakes in the immigration process just because you did not choose to hire an immigration lawyer? If you want to take the time to learn everything there is to know about immigration law then you could. But why bother?

What Could Go Wrong?

You may not learn everything you need to learn. You may come across information that is outdated without realizing it. Your case may have special circumstances that will affect the immigration process but you may not know enough to know that. You could even make enough mistakes to have to try the process again only to decide the second time that it would be easier to hire an immigration attorney.

What Can An Immigration Lawyer Do For You?

An immigration lawyer can begin by taking a look at your unique situation and how that situation might affect the immigration process. They will then be able to tell you about any and all benefits for which you might be eligible because they will be aware of any recent changes in the immigration process. They can direct you in the best course of action to achieve the legal status that you seek.

One of the biggest perks of having an immigrations lawyer is that they can fill out and submit all the right paperwork. They can keep you updated on the status of your case and help you avoid any delays. They can represent you if court appearances are necessary. They can file appeals for you and use their experience to handle whatever might come up. Only an immigration lawyer has this experience.

Do you need an immigration lawyer? You do not need one but you probably want one. An immigration lawyer does much more than file your paperwork. They stay by you through the immigration process to make sure that it all works out exactly the way you want it to. And with as little trouble or delay as possible.

Visit Michael Golden office or website in you need an immigration lawyer in BC, Canada.

Mild brain injury creates more headaches than Severe Brain Injury

More than of a million children are admitted at the hospital every year for brain injury. Since brain injury affects so many children, there have been many studies concerning the long term effects of brain injury on a person. A new study indicates that children who have a concussion or other traumatic brain injury are much more prone to developing headaches for a period of up to a year after the incident. This is different than children who have suffered from a bodily injury which indicates that they are much less likely to develop headaches. The results direct us to a difficult long term problem for children and their family because, according to researchers, there are no treatments to take care of the lingering headaches. Dr. Heidi Blume at the Childrens Research Institute in Seattle, Washington acknowledged that “Its an issue because they may have problems with sleep, and the headaches can make it harder to concentrate.”

Dr. Blume and her coworkers tracked more than 450 kids that were admitted into the emergency room due to brain injury accidents. Out of those over 450 children, 60 of those children had a moderate or severe injury whereas 402 had a mild injury. The children with brain injury cited many different causes including car accidents, falls, playing sports, and general rough play.

Dr. Blume and her colleagues compared all of the injury cases that they have seen and came up with some interesting data. Included in that data was a the information from diaries that Dr. Blume asked the children and their parents to keep which complied all of the headaches that they sustained over a period of a year. The data showed that after only three months, 43 out of every 100 kids who experienced some form of mild brain injury had headaches. Further, 37 out of 100 complained of headaches in the moderate or severe injury category.

The data is in direct conflict with what most doctors would foresee. More specifically, doctors are unsure how more headaches have been occurring in mild brain injury victims instead of severe brain injury victims. Karen Barlow of Alberta Childrens Hospital in Canada commented on this conundrum by stating that “That is a conundrum that we dont fully understand, but its been noted before” in research of adults. Barlow went on to explain that “There might be something about the moderate and severe traumatic brain injuries that interfere with the mechanisms of sensing pain, but we havent gotten to the bottom of that.” Thus, this data is still not known and researchers will continue to attempt to understand the full complexity of brain injuries.

If you or a loved one has suffered a serious injury or death of a loved one, the last thing you want to think about is saving money to pay for a California brain injury attorney. Accordingly, the Ginny Walia Law Offices handle cases on a contingency fee basis. This means that if you do not recover, then you will not be charged for any legal fees. Our fee structure is based on a percentage of the amount that we obtain for you. Further, we will work with you to settle your case.

Our personal injury attorneys will never settle your case without your authorization. California personal injury lawyers at Ginny Walia Law Offices will do everything possible to settle your brain injury accident case out of court without the delay of a full trial.

Speak to a California personal injury attorney now: If you or a loved one has suffered a brain injury, we can help. Please call us now at 1 (510) 887-5910 for a free no obligation consultation.

Are Royal Assent, Pardons And Prorogation Fact Or Legal Fiction

Elizabeth II is the Head of State of the United Kingdom and fifteen other member states of the Commonwealth of Nations. These countries are constitutional monarchies, meaning that they operate under an essentially democratic constitution, the Queens principal role being to represent the state. Very often, she is viewed as a symbolic and apolitical personage with no real power. But is this entirely true? Does the Queen really possess purely nominal authority, or can she in fact exercise her will in any public action? This is not an easy question to answer. I will attempt to do so by focusing mainly on one of her most important theoretical prerogatives: the right to grant or deny royal assent to laws passed by Parliament.

A difficulty in judging the extent of the authority presently held by the monarchy lies in the fact that the British constitution has not been codified into one single document and much of it remains unwritten. The extensive power that the monarch once indisputably possessed, including the right to administer justice, dissolve Parliament or pardon crimes, was largely a matter of common law and not statute. What laws were codified (the Bill of Rights of 1689 and the Act of Settlement of 1701 standing among the most important) served more to restrict the Monarchs power than to entrench it. Thus, the residual powers still reserved to the Queen continue to be more a matter of constitutional convention than of written rules. Formally, no Act of the British Parliament becomes a proper law until it is given assent by the Queen. Yet in practice, Elizabeth II assents to all bills, irrespective of her opinion on them. The last time a British monarch rejected a law was in 1708, when Queen Anne vetoed the Scottish Militia Bill, and even then, she did so at the request of her ministers. Since then, the right of royal assent has fallen into disuse, leading some constitutional theorists to claim that a new convention obligating the monarch to assent to all bills has arisen. This view was famously stressed by Walter Bagehot in his 1867 volume The English Constitution:

…the Queen has no such veto. She must sign her own death-warrant if the two Houses unanimously send it up to her. It is a fiction of the past to ascribe to her legislative power. She has long ceased to have any.

In earlier generations, such a bold assertion of the monarchs supposed lack of power would have been unpardonable. Even I see some flaws in this theory. For one thing, the only evidence on which it stands (besides Bagehots claim) is custom. Even if all the monarchs since Queen Anne have assented to all bills presented to them, there is no formal change in any official policy that would indicate that the practice will be followed for the next bill. Additionally, if the Queen decided to withhold assent to a bill, what legal mechanism could force her to do otherwise? It would seem to me that in such an event, the veto could only be effectively circumvented by some kind of revolutionary act – as a minimum, by the Government refusing to respect the veto, which would undoubtedly lead to a constitutional crisis.

The situation is more clear-cut in Canada, which, unlike the United Kingdom, has a constitution that is largely written. The Constitution Act, 1867 clearly delineates the powers of the Crown. According to Section 55 of the Act, when the Governor General (the Queens representative in Canada) is presented with a bill that has been passed by Parliament, he may declare that he assents to it in the Queens name, that he withholds his assent, or that he reserves the bill for the signification of the Queens pleasure (letting the Queen decide the matter; according to Section 57, she may do so within two years after the Governor General receives the bill). Furthermore, as per Section 56, the Queen in Council (the Queen acting on the advice of her Privy Council) may disallow a law assented to by the Governor General within two years after receiving a copy of the law. Therefore, the Queen, together with the Governor General, does have the formal authority to veto a law passed by the Canadian Parliament. Nevertheless, no Governor General has done this since Confederation in 1867, although some provincial Lieutenant Governors have vetoed provincial laws or reserved them to the pleasure of the Governor General (under the authority of Section 90 of the Constitution Act, 1867). This happened most recently in 1963 when Saskatchewans Lieutenant Governor Frank Bastedo reserved a bill.

On top of that, there are instances in recent Commonwealth history of other royal prerogatives being directly exercised by the Crown against a governments wishes. Depending on the country, the crown may have extensive official powers, including the appointment of ministers, granting of pardons for eliminating criminal records, or calling an early election, and some of these have been exercised in person, especially during unclear political situations. A classic example is Governor General Byngs 1926 refusal to call a very early election at the request of Canadian Liberal Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King, who wished to remain in power despite the stronger footing of the Conservative party in Parliament. Byng refused to do so; King was incensed by this supposed infringement on democracy, but Byng stood his ground. Another famous example was the dismissal of Prime Minister Gough Whitlam by Australian Governor General John Kerr during the 1975 Australian constitutional crisis. Whitlams controversial government did not have control of both houses of Parliament and he petitioned Kerr to call a half-senate election. Instead, Kerr dismissed him and appointed Malcolm Fraser, the leader of the Opposition, in his place.

The fact that the royal prerogative is rarely exercised, if at all, by the Queen and her representatives, appears to be more the product of a conventional good will on their part than an actual legal requirement. I hope Bagehot would pardon me if I surmised that he overdid it when he claimed that the Queen must sign her own death-warrant; what he was speaking about was more a matter of everyday practice as he saw it than a real summary of the standing law. After all, the monarchy seeks to stay popular and in todays age of democracy, its very existence depends on public approval.

Migration For Canada By Immigration Overseas Experts

If you are a migrant and have done a bit of research by now, then you would be aware of the fact that migration is tangled process which involves myriad formalities that are to be followed for a proper migration. Also the whole process takes a very long duration to be completed. It can even take years for the authorities to properly process your application. Migration for Canada is also a very lengthy process and it also involves such complications. However these complications can be simplified if you are under the guidance of immigration consultants. Immigration consultant expertise in the department of handling complex migration laws with ease. They provide guidance to their customers for a hassle free migration. Apart from handling the immigration laws, they provide effectual services to their clients like medical insurance, pre-arranged accommodation and such others. These services facilitate the whole process of immigration.
Immigration consultants can really make a big difference in the way of your migration by saving your time and money. Still there is a thing you need to take caution of before taking assistance from this migration for Canada firms. There are many firms who will try to steal of your money without giving you proper services and by not carrying out your process even after charging you for those services. First they exorbitantly charge you then not provide you with satisfying results. For not to become a victim of such firms what you can do is check for the accreditation that the particular firm has received. Accreditations are a very important factor in deciding the reputation of any firm as they testify that the firm is a legally accepted enterprise. Then you can see for the experience they have in the migration domain. Experience means that they have handled many cases in that department and have the relevant expertise in tackling any complex situation which might arise.
Immigration Overseas is the firm which can be the end to your migration for Canada search. Here you will find some of the best and exclusive services that will make your migration experience memorable. This firm is affiliated from several government agencies like Migrants Agents Registration Authority (MARA), Migration Institute of Australia (MIA) & ICCRC. They have the experience of more than a decade, in which Immigration Overseas have handled complex migration cases.

Canada Immigration Consultant In Hyderabad

Immigration can be described as an act allows a foreigner to access the territory of overseas nations frequently and settle there permanently. The purpose of immigration can be different entirely depends on the intended applicants personal goal. However, they all have a common desire to get permanent residence in a foreign country. Meanwhile, the complication in immigration process certainly cant be ignored while explaining it one must be well aware of entire process to overcome this.

Planning for Canada immigration is often described as a great effort but, it is also need to be kept in mind that the country grants immigration visa only a limited number of people who successfully qualify the arduous eligibility criteria and capable of providing all the required documents. Those who are residing in Hyderabad, known for lavishing life and mouth watering meals, can reduce their stress at some extents by getting in touch with various immigration experts, while sucking into a stringent immigration work out. The Canada Immigration Consultant in Hyderabad is well identified for their quality of services at affordable costs.

The immigration experts in Hyderabad are known for providing the best assistance in choosing the right visa that suits clients work profile by focusing on various opportunities related to their occupation available in the country. Established a great goodwill in the market for catering desires of getting permanent resident in foreign countries of aspirants, the Canada Immigration Consultant in Hyderabad gave a reason to people to expand their horizon and dream more.

Being a great highlight of Immigration Consultant in Hyderabad, Abhinav, a well established name in immigration service, is one among a large number of immigration consultancies claimed immense success in fulfilling the desire of customers by making their task of obtaining immigration visa successful. Serving customers with full assurance of getting positive outcome is something projected as a great aspect of Abhinavs immigration service that allows clients to go through lots of immigration options in terms of countries like Australia, Canada, Denmark, UK, USA, Lithuania, Latvia and many more.

Ventured into the Immigration business in 1994, Abhinav tops in reliability and credited for offering immense success to the customers by offering the best solution. Apart from being the best Immigration Consultancy in Hyderabad, Abhinav established its branches in various other cities like Delhi, Mumbai, Pune and Bangalore, and highlighted success as a tradition of the consultancy.

Run by Mr. Ajay Sharma, identified as a Principle Immigration Consultant, Abhinav earned expertise in understanding the world of its clients and offers the best possible service by knowing their needs at reasonable costs. Moreover, those who are not able to decide which country will be the best destination or which visa program will be the most suitable for them, Abhinav serves them passionately by offering plethora of options unless they choose the best suitable option.

A Criminal Defence Lawyer Explains How To Get Your Charges Withdrawn Or Stayed

If you have been charged with a criminal offence in Canada, you may be wondering what the options are for getting rid of your charges. Obviously, you can make a plea or have a trial. However, in some cases, there are other options such as having your charges withdrawn by the crown attorney or stayed. This article explains what those two terms mean.

When can the crown withdraw a charge?

The crown attorney has the right to withdraw any criminal charge before an accused person enters a plea in open court.

If you have already entered a plea, the crown attorney can still withdraw a charge, but the court must also agree that withdrawing the charge is appropriate.

If the crown tries to relay the charge after the charge has been withdrawn, the court may intervene to ensure there is no abuse of process.

Any attempt to relay a criminal charge after a withdrawal by the crown attorney should be discussed with your defence lawyer because any decision by the crown to prosecute after a charge was withdrawn may require a legal application to be brought before the court.

What about a stay of the charges? The crown attorney may also stay the proceedings as of right at any time before a final judgment is rendered. A stay of proceedings stops the prosecution proceedings immediately. The court has no power to intervene to require the continuation of the prosecution. Once a stay of proceedings is entered, the accused can also automatically be released from detention.

A stay of proceedings is an excellent outcome for the accused person. However the crown does have the power to recommence the prosecution after a stay of proceedings has been entered. This is why you should discuss with your criminal defence lawyer whether or not it is possible to obtain a withdrawal of charges rather than a stay of proceedings.

Sometimes, an experienced defence lawyer can persuade the crown to agree to withdraw the charges rather than entering a stay of proceedings.

How is either a stay or a withdrawal achieved? In many cases, these excellent outomes ocur because your criminal defence lawyer has negotiated with the crown attorney. Under Canadian law, the Crown must not proceed with the case if there is “no reasonable prosect” succeeding at trial. In the right case, an experienced criminal defence lawyer can demonstrate to the crown attorney that the crown’s case is doomed and should not continue.

Canadians more positive towards immigration than US and Europe

According to a poll released last Thursday, Canadian attitudes toward immigration are hardening but Canada still remains more positive attitude as compared to other Western nations including the US and Europe.

The annual survey, done by a Washington-based think-tank, looked at public perception of a wide variety of immigration issues in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Spain. And it maintains that Canada is the most welcoming nation to the immigrants who want to live and work in Canada.

Around two-thirds of Canadians agreed that people immigrating to Canada have been successfully integrated into their society. The statistics show that respondents who felt in 2010 that immigrants helped create jobs by establishing new businesses down is down from 75 per cent in 2009 to 67 per cent in 2010. And the proportion of Canadians who thought immigration “enriches” culture by bringing in new customs and ideas slipped from 65 to 60 per cent. However in both cases, the numbers were significantly higher than those from the US and Europe.

The majority of the survey respondents from the US (73%), the UK (70%), Spain (61%), France (58%), and the Netherlands (54%) believed that their government was doing a poor job in managing immigration. Only Canadians were split, with 48% feeling positive and 43% responding negatively about their government’s handling of immigration to Canada.

Delancey Gustin – the author of the 2010 Immigration Public Opinion Survey said that Canadians are quite positive about immigration and they seem to be less bothered by issues of immigrants taking away their jobs leading to lower wages. She also stated that Canadian government policies and more importantly Canadian geography drive public attitudes.

For further information and advice on obtaining a Canadian visa, contact Migration Expert by visiting Migration Expert is an online provider of visa and immigration advice and services. The Company has been operating since 2002 when it began its Australian visa services and has since helped people from all over the world apply for visas to Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom and the United States.

Visa Application Service Advantages

Visa application has been a constant problem for people who love to visit other countries. One has to pass through a long process with proper legal documents and passports to apply for visas. Also the filling process at the immigration offices is not very easy because it takes days and days to get the approval for your visa application. So it`s up to you if you think that you are able to fill in your visa application on your own than you might have a lot of patience, but if you feel like it`s not your job and you need someone to do that for you than you should go for some specialists that can really help you, offering you a smaller possibility of failure or mistake.

Here is the solution to your problems; there are many places which are opened to provide such facilities to customers not only for Russian visas, but also for some other visas like French visa, Angola visa, Lebanon visa, Brazil Visa, Canada visa and many others. So what you have to do is simply connect to these sites and choose the location and type of visa you want for your trip, and they`ll ask you to fill in some details because they need to submit certain legal documents.

Now, your work will be done by professionals who can guarantee you quality. You`ll get the visa in the promised time, without going from one embassy to another, without waiting in long queues, without wasting your free time. Of course you have to pay a certain fee which can vary from one website to another, but you`ll see that you`ll be happy to pay this amount to keep your calm. If you have experienced this kind of experience you would understand that it is a small fee for your patience.

These sites offer comfort to their customers and provide them all kind of services related to visa. You`ll see that calling on these sites will be the best decision you have take. Moreover these websites will be available to you every day, 24 hours, so you can fill in the application form whenever you want from any part of the world, because all they created all the necessary conditions.

In conclusion, it`s better for you to take into account new options because in this way you`ll fasten the application process and you`ll get your visa on time, without losing your precious time, just sitting in front of your computer and deciding what is the best for you.

Are Royal Assent, Pardons And Prorogation Fact Or Legal Fiction

Elizabeth II is the Head of State of the United Kingdom and fifteen other member states of the Commonwealth of Nations. These countries are constitutional monarchies, meaning that they operate under an essentially democratic constitution, the Queens principal role being to represent the state. Very often, she is viewed as a symbolic and apolitical personage with no real power. But is this entirely true? Does the Queen really possess purely nominal authority, or can she in fact exercise her will in any public action? This is not an easy question to answer. I will attempt to do so by focusing mainly on one of her most important theoretical prerogatives: the right to grant or deny royal assent to laws passed by Parliament.

A difficulty in judging the extent of the authority presently held by the monarchy lies in the fact that the British constitution has not been codified into one single document and much of it remains unwritten. The extensive power that the monarch once indisputably possessed, including the right to administer justice, dissolve Parliament or pardon crimes, was largely a matter of common law and not statute. What laws were codified (the Bill of Rights of 1689 and the Act of Settlement of 1701 standing among the most important) served more to restrict the Monarchs power than to entrench it. Thus, the residual powers still reserved to the Queen continue to be more a matter of constitutional convention than of written rules. Formally, no Act of the British Parliament becomes a proper law until it is given assent by the Queen. Yet in practice, Elizabeth II assents to all bills, irrespective of her opinion on them. The last time a British monarch rejected a law was in 1708, when Queen Anne vetoed the Scottish Militia Bill, and even then, she did so at the request of her ministers. Since then, the right of royal assent has fallen into disuse, leading some constitutional theorists to claim that a new convention obligating the monarch to assent to all bills has arisen. This view was famously stressed by Walter Bagehot in his 1867 volume The English Constitution:

…the Queen has no such veto. She must sign her own death-warrant if the two Houses unanimously send it up to her. It is a fiction of the past to ascribe to her legislative power. She has long ceased to have any.

In earlier generations, such a bold assertion of the monarchs supposed lack of power would have been unpardonable. Even I see some flaws in this theory. For one thing, the only evidence on which it stands (besides Bagehots claim) is custom. Even if all the monarchs since Queen Anne have assented to all bills presented to them, there is no formal change in any official policy that would indicate that the practice will be followed for the next bill. Additionally, if the Queen decided to withhold assent to a bill, what legal mechanism could force her to do otherwise? It would seem to me that in such an event, the veto could only be effectively circumvented by some kind of revolutionary act – as a minimum, by the Government refusing to respect the veto, which would undoubtedly lead to a constitutional crisis.

The situation is more clear-cut in Canada, which, unlike the United Kingdom, has a constitution that is largely written. The Constitution Act, 1867 clearly delineates the powers of the Crown. According to Section 55 of the Act, when the Governor General (the Queens representative in Canada) is presented with a bill that has been passed by Parliament, he may declare that he assents to it in the Queens name, that he withholds his assent, or that he reserves the bill for the signification of the Queens pleasure (letting the Queen decide the matter; according to Section 57, she may do so within two years after the Governor General receives the bill). Furthermore, as per Section 56, the Queen in Council (the Queen acting on the advice of her Privy Council) may disallow a law assented to by the Governor General within two years after receiving a copy of the law. Therefore, the Queen, together with the Governor General, does have the formal authority to veto a law passed by the Canadian Parliament. Nevertheless, no Governor General has done this since Confederation in 1867, although some provincial Lieutenant Governors have vetoed provincial laws or reserved them to the pleasure of the Governor General (under the authority of Section 90 of the Constitution Act, 1867). This happened most recently in 1963 when Saskatchewans Lieutenant Governor Frank Bastedo reserved a bill.

On top of that, there are instances in recent Commonwealth history of other royal prerogatives being directly exercised by the Crown against a governments wishes. Depending on the country, the crown may have extensive official powers, including the appointment of ministers, granting of pardons for eliminating criminal records, or calling an early election, and some of these have been exercised in person, especially during unclear political situations. A classic example is Governor General Byngs 1926 refusal to call a very early election at the request of Canadian Liberal Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King, who wished to remain in power despite the stronger footing of the Conservative party in Parliament. Byng refused to do so; King was incensed by this supposed infringement on democracy, but Byng stood his ground. Another famous example was the dismissal of Prime Minister Gough Whitlam by Australian Governor General John Kerr during the 1975 Australian constitutional crisis. Whitlams controversial government did not have control of both houses of Parliament and he petitioned Kerr to call a half-senate election. Instead, Kerr dismissed him and appointed Malcolm Fraser, the leader of the Opposition, in his place.

The fact that the royal prerogative is rarely exercised, if at all, by the Queen and her representatives, appears to be more the product of a conventional good will on their part than an actual legal requirement. I hope Bagehot would pardon me if I surmised that he overdid it when he claimed that the Queen must sign her own death-warrant; what he was speaking about was more a matter of everyday practice as he saw it than a real summary of the standing law. After all, the monarchy seeks to stay popular and in todays age of democracy, its very existence depends on public approval.