apprehension of harm

See: fear
Mentioned in ?
References in periodicals archive ?
QUALIFIED PROHIBITIONS: DETERMINING THE "REASONED APPREHENSION OF HARM"
To determine when Parliament can invoke the criminal law power for administrative and regulatory provisions, LeBel and Deschamps JJ introduced the threshold of a "reasoned apprehension of harm." (184) This aspect has been called "a potentially groundbreaking doctrinal shift" because "for the first time in federalism jurisprudence a majority analogized this task to identifying a legislative objective for purposes of section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms".
Requiring Parliament to identify the "reasoned apprehension of harm" prevents it from simply invoking vague terms such as "morality," "evil," or "safety" to justify criminal regulations that have little connection to the criminal law.
THE REASONED APPREHENSION OF HARM IN ACTION: AMENDMENTS TO THE AHR ACT
And in another division of powers article in the contentious health area, Ubaka Ogbogu makes the case that where there is lack of specificity in our Constitution regarding the division of powers, the "concrete basis and reasoned apprehension of harm" threshold proposed in the AHRA Reference (7) offers a better solution than existing doctrine for the demarcation of federal and provincial legislative authority over health.
"Rather a reasoned apprehension of harm will suffice." With the ruling on common bawdy houses the Court has thrown out its own considered judgment for yet another innovation.
Butler supports criminal law that addresses the reasonable apprehension of harm as well as actual harm.
Tae contrary doctrine, that a "reasoned apprehension of harm" is a sufficient basis to criminalise expressive materials, is, for us, an unacceptable violation of freedom of speech, one of the fundamental freedoms protected by Section 2 of she Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Canada's Constitution.
However, it is important to insist that the most interesting situations are those where the shared anxiety does not appear to be a response to an immediate apprehension of harm. Interesting here means something like, those situations that are the most challenging to explain.
of [a] reasoned apprehension of harm." (13) A second panel of four justices, led by McLachlin CJC, differed, holding that "[n]o constitutional threshold level of harm ...
This paper argues that the "concrete basis and reasoned apprehension of harm" requirement proposed by LeBel and Deschamps JJ in the AHRA Reference provides a sensible and useful demarcation between federal interest in regulating criminal aspects of health, and provincial interests in regulating health as a matter engaged by various heads of provincial powers, and moves us closer to finding a principled solution to federal-provincial disputes over health regulation.
He says that "[i]nstead of being rationally connected to a reasonable apprehension of harm, the blanket prohibition contributes to the very harm it seeks to prevent.