Section 3 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a section that constitutionally guarantees Canadian citizens the democratic right to vote in a general federal or provincial election and the right to be eligible for membership in the House of Commons or of a provincial legislative assembly, subject to the requirements of Section 1 of the Charter. Federal judges, prisoners and those in mental institutions have gained the franchise as a result of this provision, whereas the restriction on minors voting was found to be permissible due to section 1.
Canadian constitutional law is the area of Canadian law relating to the interpretation and application of the Constitution of Canada by the courts. All laws of Canada, both provincial and federal, must conform to the Constitution and any laws inconsistent with the Constitution have no force or effect.
Section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects against unreasonable search and seizure. This right provides those in Canada with their primary source of constitutionally enforced privacy rights against unreasonable intrusion from the state. Typically, this protects personal information that can be obtained through searching someone in pat-down, entering someone's property or surveillance.
Canadian trademark law provides protection to marks by statute under the Trademarks Act and also at common law. Trademark law provides protection for distinctive marks, certification marks, distinguishing guises, and proposed marks against those who appropriate the goodwill of the mark or create confusion between different vendors' goods or services. A mark can be protected either as a registered trademark under the Act or can alternately be protected by a common law action in passing off.
In Canadian contract law, Contract A is a concept applied by Canadian courts regarding the fair and equal treatment of bidders in a contract tendering process. Essentially this concept formalizes previously applied precedents and strengthens the protection afforded to those who submit bids in the tendering process. The concept was introduced in 1981 by the Supreme Court of Canada, in R. v. Ron Engineering and Construction (Eastern) Ltd. The court found that a "duty of fairness" was owed to all bidders by an owner in a tendering process.
In Canadian constitutional law, the doctrine of paramountcy establishes that where there is a conflict between valid provincial and federal laws, the federal law will prevail and the provincial law will be inoperative to the extent that it conflicts with the federal law. Unlike interjurisdictional immunity, which is concerned with the scope of the federal power, paramountcy deals with the way in which that power is exercised.
Contract B is a concept in Canadian law. A Contract B is formed when an Owner formally accepts a Bid or, colloquially, a submission of price. Only a single Contract B is formed between the Owner and the successful bidder. The term Contract B is used to differentiate the actual construction contract from the tender contract or Contract A. Tied to the concept of Contract A, Contract B is a place holder in the concept, a marker at the end of a formalized process of equitable treatment of both bidders and owners. In many ways it is more of an academic detail within the Contract A - Contract B concept, but can also be thought of as a label for the actual construction contract.
In contract law, the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is a general presumption that the parties to a contract will deal with each other honestly, fairly, and in good faith, so as to not destroy the right of the other party or parties to receive the benefits of the contract. It is implied in a number of contract types in order to reinforce the express covenants or promises of the contract.
BG Checo International Ltd v British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority, [1993] 1 SCR 12 is a leading decision by the Supreme Court of Canada. The Court held that there is a prima facie presumption that a claimant is able to sue concurrently in tort and contract where sufficient grounds exist. Still, liability in tort will still be subject to an exemptions or conditions set out in a contract.
Canadian contract law is composed of two parallel systems: a common law framework outside Québec and a civil law framework within Québec. Outside Québec, Canadian contract law is derived from English contract law, though it has developed distinctly since Canadian Confederation in 1867. While Québecois contract law was originally derived from that which existed in France at the time of Québec's annexation into the British Empire, it was overhauled and codified first in the Civil Code of Lower Canada and later in the current Civil Code of Quebec, which codifies most elements of contract law as part of its provisions on the broader law of obligations. Individual common law provinces have codified certain contractual rules in a Sale of Goods Act, resembling equivalent statutes elsewhere in the Commonwealth. As most aspects of contract law in Canada are the subject of provincial jurisdiction under the Canadian Constitution, contract law may differ even between the country's common law provinces and territories. Conversely; as the law regarding bills of exchange and promissory notes, trade and commerce, maritime law, and banking among other related areas is governed by federal law under Section 91 of the Constitution Act, 1867; aspects of contract law pertaining to these topics are harmonised between Québec and the common law provinces.
Construction bidding is the process of submitting a proposal (tender) to undertake, or manage the undertaking of a construction project. The process starts with a cost estimate from blueprints and material take offs.
Whiten v Pilot Insurance Co, 2002 SCC 18, [2002] 1 S.C.R. 595 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on the availability of punitive damages in contract. The case related to the oppressive conduct of an insurance company in dealing with the policyholders' claim following a fire. According to the majority, "[t]his was an exceptional case that justified an exceptional remedy."
BMP Global Distribution Inc v Bank of Nova Scotia, [2009] 1 S.C.R. 504, 2009 SCC 15, is a significant case of the Supreme Court of Canada on the law of restitution and tracing, in this case dealing with a bank's right to recover funds paid by mistake on the deposit of a fraudulent cheque.
This article is a list of Justice Michael Moldaver's written judgments during his tenure as puisne justice of the Supreme Court of Canada.
Daishowa-Marubeni International Ltd v Canada is a significant case of the Supreme Court of Canada concerning the application of Canadian income tax law, as well as the purposive interpretation of statutes.
Southcott Estates Inc v Toronto Catholic District School Board, 2012 SCC 51, [2012] 2 SCR 675, is a landmark case of the Supreme Court of Canada in the area of commercial law, with significant impact in the areas of:
Honda Canada Inc v Keays, 2008 SCC 39, [2008] 2 SCR 362 is a leading case of the Supreme Court of Canada that has had significant impact in Canadian employment law, in that it reformed the manner in which damages are to be awarded in cases of wrongful dismissal and it declared that such awards were not affected by the type of position an employee may have had.
R v Comeau, 2018 SCC 15 is a leading and controversial case of the Supreme Court of Canada concerning the scope of free trade between the provinces of Canada under s. 121 of the Constitution Act, 1867.
Desgagnés Transport Inc v Wärtsilä Canada Inc, 2019 SCC 58 is a major Canadian constitutional law ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada concerning the interplay of federal and provincial jurisdictions under the Constitution Act, 1867.
Tercon Contractors Ltd. v. British Columbia is a British Columbia legal case which was resolved in the Supreme Court of Canada in 2010 on a majority decision, both the majority and the dissenting Justices agreeing that the legal doctrine of fundamental breach should be "laid to rest", or "donner le coup de grâce" in the French report, in respect of the enforceability of exclusion clauses. The judges were divided five:four in regard to the applicability of their ruling to the facts of this particular case.
