The Egyptian regime is barring the Al-Qazzaz family from returning to their home in Canada, and has seized a significant amount of their assets, including the family business. The case has drawn lots of international criticism, and it's not hard to see why, given that it involves the violation of several United Nations instruments.

While it may be tempting for some Canadian commentators to dance on the grave of a recently departed conservative jurist, it is worth pausing and reflecting on the fact that on the international comity so important to successive Canadian governments, Scalia's textualism arguably led him more often to be found on our side and leading his more liberal colleagues to our side.

Much attention is paid to the fact that, like its predecessors, the Paris Agreement is "toothless" because it isn't backed up by an enforcement mechanism. This pessimism is understandable. Without clear and binding targets, how can any of the signatories be assured that their sacrifices will lead to meaningful emissions reductions? How can they know that the potentially difficult transition towards renewable energy will be a shared burden? The bad news is that the Paris Agreement is unlikely to introduce strict targets or develop an enforcement mechanism in the foreseeable future.

The United Nations in Geneva, Switzerland has recently published a unique cookbook, Recipes for Peace, Rights & Well-being, which shares the secrets of many "recipes" for its peace and humanitarian initiatives that have changed the world, combined with superb recipes from some of Geneva's most celebrated chefs.

The International Human Rights Program (IHRP) at the University of Toronto Faculty of Law and David Asper Centre for Constitutional Rights were interveners before the Supreme Court and argued that the right to a remedy is protected under international law, and is a principle of fundamental justice under the Charter (which protects life, liberty and security of the person). The Supreme Court rejected that argument.