This article examines public choice as a predictor of legislative behaviour and as a guide for statutory and constitutional interpretation. It focuses on short limitation periods, which have often been criticized as special interest legislation benefiting well-organized groups, such as medical doctors. The author concludes that the economic assumptions of public choice cannot adequately explain complexities in interest group behaviour, and that the Canadian legislative process has the ability to advance the interests of diffuse and unorganized groups, such as patients. The author also argues that given the absence of normative content in public choice analysis, Canadian courts have rightly rejected it as a guide for constitutional review or strong forms of statutory interpretation, which ignore clear legislative purposes or words.
"The Problems of Public Choice: The Case of Short Limitation Periods."
Osgoode Hall Law Journal