Reasons of the court
The Court held that the tribunal had the authority to apply the Charter and found that the Act did violate it. Consequently, Martin was given the benefits and Laseur's case was sent back to the tribunal for reconsideration.
Justice Gonthier, writing for a unanimous Court, considered the question of whether the Charter could be applied by the tribunal. Gonthier stated that if the text of the legislation gives the tribunal authority to apply the law then it can also apply the Charter.
In the case where there is no express authority to apply law then the court can look for implied authority by considering the statute as a whole. Factors to be considered include the mandate of the tribunal, whether the body is adjudicative in nature, and whether it possesses any other characteristics of the administrative system.
If the claimant successfully argues that the tribunal has authority to use the Charter, the party opposing this can rebut the presumption by either showing that there is explicit withdrawal of the authority by the legislature, or by showing that the statutory scheme points to an intention to exclude the authority.
The Constitution Act, 1867, originally enacted as the British North America Act, 1867, is a major part of the Constitution of Canada. The act created a federal dominion and defines much of the operation of the Government of Canada, including its federal structure, the House of Commons, the Senate, the justice system, and the taxation system. In 1982, with the patriation of the Constitution, the British North America Acts which were originally enacted by the British Parliament, including this Act, were renamed. However, the acts are still known by their original names in records of the United Kingdom. Amendments were also made at this time: section 92A was added, giving provinces greater control over non-renewable natural resources.
The court system of Canada is made up of many courts differing in levels of legal superiority and separated by jurisdiction. In the courts, the judiciary interpret and apply the law of Canada. Some of the courts are federal in nature, while others are provincial or territorial.
Andrews v Law Society of British Columbia, [1989] 1 SCR 143 is the first Supreme Court of Canada case to deal with the equality rights provided under Section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. British law graduate Mark David Andrews challenged the validity of Section 42 of the Barristers and Solicitors Act contending that the Canadian citizenship requirement for being called to the bar violated Section 15 of the Charter.
R v Wholesale Travel Group Inc [1991] 3 S.C.R. 154, is a leading Supreme Court of Canada case on the distinction between "true crime" and regulatory offences.
Section 24 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms provides for remedies available to those whose Charter rights are shown to be violated. Some scholars have argued that it was actually section 24 that ensured that the Charter would not have the primary flaw of the 1960 Canadian Bill of Rights. Canadian judges would be reassured that they could indeed strike down statutes on the basis that they contradicted a bill of rights.
Gosselin v Quebec (AG) [2002] 4 SCR 429, 2002 SCC 84, is the first claim under section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to a right to an adequate level of social assistance. The Supreme Court of Canada rejected the Charter challenge against a Quebec law excluding citizens under age 30 from receiving full social security benefits.
Sobeys Stores v. Yeomans and Labour Standards Tribunal (NS) [1989] 1 S.C.R. 238 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada case on determining if a tribunal has the authority to hear a dispute, and more generally, the interpretation of section 96 of the Constitution Act, 1867.
R v Daviault [1994] 3 S.C.R. 63, is a Supreme Court of Canada decision on the availability of the defence of intoxication for "general intent" criminal offences. The Leary rule which eliminated the defence was found unconstitutional in violation of both section 7 and 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Instead, intoxication can only be used as a defence where it is so extreme that it is akin to automatism or insanity.
Section 11 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the section of the Canadian Constitution that protects a person's legal rights in criminal and penal matters. There are nine enumerated rights protected in section 11.
New Brunswick Broadcasting Co v Nova Scotia (Speaker of the House of Assembly) is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision wherein the court has ruled that parliamentary privilege is a part of the unwritten convention in the Constitution of Canada. Therefore, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms do not apply to members of Nova Scotia House of Assembly when they exercise their inherent privileges of refusing strangers from entering the House.
R v Malmo-Levine; R v Caine [2003] 3 S.C.R. 571, 2003 SCC 74, is a Supreme Court of Canada decision that Parliament had the authority to criminalize the possession and trafficking of marijuana, and that power did not infringe on the section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Mackeigan v Hickman, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 796 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on judicial independence. The Court unanimously held that to require a federal judge to explain his or her decisions would violate the principle of judicial independence.
R v Nova Scotia Pharmaceutical Society, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 606 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the doctrine of vagueness. The Court held that laws can be struck down as a violation of section 7 where they are so vague as to violate fundamental justice.
Dunmore v Ontario (AG), 2001 SCC 94 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on the constitutional right to freedom of association under section 2(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ("Charter"). The Court held that the lack of a positive framework that protected farm workers from employer reprisals for exercising their associational rights under the Charter constituted a "substantial interference" of their right to freedom of association. The Ontario government responded with the Agricultural Employees Protection Act, which extended only to agricultural workers and prohibited employer reprisals against employees exercising their rights under section 2(d) of the Charter.
R v Bartle, [1994] 3 SCR 173 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on the right to retain and instruct counsel under section 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ("Charter"). The Court held that a police officer is required to hold off on his or her investigation upon arresting an individual until the detainee has been informed of his or her rights and given sufficient information and access to contact a private lawyer or duty counsel. The case applied the earlier Supreme Court of Canada decision R v Brydges. The judgment was released with three other decisions: R v Pozniak, R v Harper, R v Matheson and R v Prosper.
Lavigne v Ontario Public Service Employees Union, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 211 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on freedom of expression under section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and freedom of association under section 2(d) of the Charter.
Weber v Ontario Hydro, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 929 is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada where the Court held that a labour arbitration board was a "court of competent jurisdiction" within the meaning of section 24(1) of the Charter, and could grant declarations and damages. Consequently, the board has exclusive jurisdiction over the matter, and so employees cannot bring suits concerning matters under a collective agreement to court.
R v Morrisey, [2000] 2 SCR 90 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on the right to be free of cruel and unusual punishment under section 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Court held that there can be exemptions for mandatory prison sentences where the sentence is unreasonable or has an effect upon the accused that may be considered harsh.
Douglas/Kwantlen Faculty Assn v Douglas College, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 570 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision regarding the jurisdiction of an administrative tribunal.
Canada (AG) v Mossop, [1993] 1 SCR 554 was the first decision of the Supreme Court of Canada to consider equality rights for gays. The case is also significant as one of Justice L'Heureux-Dube's most famous dissents where she proposes an evolving model of the "family".
