External links
  | This article about Canadian law is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |
R. v. Gonzales (1962), 37 C.R. 56, was a landmark decision by the British Columbia Court of Appeal holding that Section 94(a) of the Indian Act did not violate the respondent's equality before the law, guaranteed under section 1(b) of the Canadian Bill of Rights , because all Indians were treated in the same way. Gonzales is particularly famous for employing the similarly situated test, which was not used in R. v. Drybones and was explicitly rejected by the Supreme Court of Canada in Andrews v. Law Society of British Columbia .
| | This article about Canadian law is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |
The Indian Act is a Canadian act of Parliament that concerns registered Indians, their bands, and the system of Indian reserves. First passed in 1876 and still in force with amendments, it is the primary document which defines how the Government of Canada interacts with the 614 First Nation bands in Canada and their members. Throughout its long history the Act has been an ongoing subject of controversy and has been interpreted in different ways by both Indigenous Canadians and non-Indigenous Canadians. The legislation has been amended many times, including "over twenty major changes" made in 2002.
Egan v Canada, [1995] 2 SCR 513 was one of a trilogy of equality rights cases published by a very divided Supreme Court of Canada in the spring of 1995. It stands today as a landmark Supreme Court case which established that sexual orientation constitutes a prohibited basis of discrimination under section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Roland Almon Ritchie, was a Canadian lawyer and puisne justice of the Supreme Court of Canada.
Andrews v Law Society of British Columbia, [1989] 1 SCR 143 is the first Supreme Court of Canada case to deal with section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The court outlined a test, sometimes called the "Andrews test", to determine whether there has been a prima facie violation of equality rights. Andrews further held that discrimination according to grounds analogous to those enumerated in section 15 could result in a violation of the Charter.
Delgamuukw v British Columbia, [1997] 3 SCR 1010, also known as Delgamuukw v The Queen, Delgamuukw-Gisday’wa, or simply Delgamuukw, is a ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada that contains its first comprehensive account of Aboriginal title in Canada. The Gitxsan and Wet’suwet’en peoples claimed Aboriginal title and jurisdiction over 58,000 square kilometers in northwest British Columbia. The plaintiffs lost the case at trial, but the Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal in part and ordered a new trial because of deficiencies relating to the pleadings and treatment of evidence. In this decision, the Court went on to describe the "nature and scope" of the protection given to Aboriginal title under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, defined how a claimant can prove Aboriginal title, and clarified how the justification test from R v Sparrow applies when Aboriginal title is infringed. The decision is also important for its treatment of oral testimony as evidence of historic occupation.
Bliss v Canada (AG) [1979] 1 S.C.R. 183 is a famous Supreme Court of Canada decision on equality rights for women under the Canadian Bill of Rights. The Court held that women were not entitled to benefits denied to them by the Unemployment Insurance Act during a certain period of pregnancy. This case has since become the prime example demonstrating the inadequacies of the Canadian Bill of Rights in upholding and protecting individuals' rights. This ruling was eventually overturned in Brooks v. Canada Safeway Ltd., [1989] 1 SCR 1219.
R v Van der Peet, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 507 is a leading case on Aboriginal rights under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. The Supreme Court held that Aboriginal fishing rights did not extend to commercial selling of fish. From this case came the Van der Peet test for determining if an Aboriginal right exists. This is the first of three cases known as the Van der Peet trilogy which included R v NTC Smokehouse Ltd and R v Gladstone.
R v Drybones, [1970] S.C.R. 282, is a landmark 6-3 Supreme Court of Canada decision holding that the Canadian Bill of Rights "empowered the courts to strike down federal legislation which offended its dictates." Accordingly, the Supreme Court of Canada held that section 94(b) of the Indian Act is inoperative because it violates section 1(b) of the Canadian Bill of Rights.
Canada (AG) v Lavell, [1974] S.C.R. 1349, was a landmark 5–4 Supreme Court of Canada decision holding that Section 12(1)(b) of the Indian Act did not violate the respondents' right to "equality before the law" under Section 1 (b) of the Canadian Bill of Rights. The two respondents, Lavell and Bédard, had alleged that the impugned section was discriminatory under the Canadian Bill of Rights by virtue of the fact that it deprived Indian women of their status for marrying a non-Indian, but not Indian men.
Law Society of Upper Canada v Skapinker, [1984] 1 S.C.R. 357 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on mobility rights protected under section 6 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is also the first Charter decision to reach the Supreme Court since its enactment in 1982.
Kruger v R, [1978] 1 S.C.R. 104, was a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada on the relationship between the Indian Act and provincial game laws. The Indian Act is a federal law enacted under the British North America Act, 1867, which gives jurisdiction over Aboriginals to the federal government. The Court found that the Indian Act's statement that provincial laws may apply to Aboriginal peoples in Canada as long as they apply to other people protects laws even if these laws affect Aboriginals more than others.
R. v. Jim (1915) 26 C.C.C. 236, was a decision by the British Columbia Supreme Court on Aboriginal ("Indian") hunting and provincial game laws. The Court found that Aboriginal hunting on Indian reserves is primarily federal jurisdiction, relating to section 91(24) of the British North America Act, 1867 which assigns "Indians, and Lands reserved for the Indians" to the federal government.
Aboriginal title is a common law doctrine that the land rights of indigenous peoples to customary tenure persist after the assumption of sovereignty under settler colonialism. The requirements of proof for the recognition of aboriginal title, the content of aboriginal title, the methods of extinguishing aboriginal title, and the availability of compensation in the case of extinguishment vary significantly by jurisdiction. Nearly all jurisdictions are in agreement that aboriginal title is inalienable, and that it may be held either individually or collectively.
R v Kapp, 2008 SCC 41 is a Supreme Court of Canada case dealing with an appeal from a British Columbia Court of Appeal decision that held that a communal fishing license granted exclusively to Aboriginals did not violate section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal on the basis a distinction based on an enumerated or analogous ground in a government program will not constitute discrimination under section 15 if, under section 15(2): (1) the program has an ameliorative or remedial purpose; and (2) the program targets a disadvantaged group identified by the enumerated or analogous grounds. In other words, the Court found that the prima facie discrimination was allowed because it was aimed at improving the situation of a disadvantaged group as allowed by section 15(2) of the Charter.
Paul v British Columbia , 2003 SCC 55, is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision in administrative law and aboriginal law. The case stands for the proposition that a provincial administrative actor granted the power to determine questions of law may adjudicate matters within federal legislative competence, including s. 35 aboriginal rights matters.
The passage of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982 allowed for the provision of challenging the constitutionality of laws governing prostitution law in Canada in addition to interpretative case law. Other legal proceedings have dealt with ultra vires issues. In 2013, three provisions of the current law were overturned by the Supreme Court of Canada, with a twelve-month stay of effect. In June 2014, the Government introduced amending legislation in response.
Joseph James Arvay, was a Canadian lawyer who argued numerous landmark cases involving civil liberties and constitutional rights.
Daniels v Canada , 2016 SCC 12 is a case of the Supreme Court of Canada, which ruled that Métis and non-status Indians are "Indians" for the purpose of s 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867.
The "comparator group" is an element that has been used in Canadian jurisprudence to analyze statutory human rights complaints and claims pursuant to section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Section 15 guarantees equality rights and the right to be free from discrimination on certain enumerated grounds.
NIL/TU,O Child and Family Services Society v BC Government and Service Employees' Union is a leading Supreme Court of Canada constitutional law case dealing with jurisdiction over labour relations in the context of federalism and Aboriginal rights.