Related Research Articles
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.
Reference Re BC Motor Vehicle Act,[1985] 2 SCR 486,was a landmark reference submitted to the Supreme Court of Canada regarding the constitutionality of the British Columbia Motor Vehicle Act. The decision established one of the first principles of fundamental justice in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ("Charter"),beyond mere natural justice,by requiring a fault component for all offences with penal consequences. The decision also proved important and controversial for establishing fundamental justice as more than a procedural right similar to due process,but also protects substantive rights even though such rights were counter to the intent of the initial drafters 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.
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.
Calder v British Columbia (AG) [1973] SCR 313,[1973] 4 WWR 1 was a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada. It was the first time that Canadian law acknowledged that aboriginal title to land existed prior to the colonization of the continent and was not merely derived from statutory law.
Rodriguez v British Columbia (AG),[1993] 3 SCR 519 is a landmark Supreme Court of Canada decision where the prohibition of assisted suicide was challenged as contrary to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ("Charter") by a terminally ill woman,Sue Rodriguez. In a 5–4 decision,the Court upheld the provision in the Criminal Code.
Kirkbi AG v. Ritvik Holdings Inc.,popularly known as the Lego Case,is a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada. The Court upheld the constitutionality of section 7(b) of the Trade-marks Act which prohibits the use of confusing marks,as well,on a second issue it was held that the doctrine of functionality applied to unregistered trade-marks.
Caloil Inc v Canada (AG) is a leading constitutional decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the Trade and Commerce power under section 91(2) of the Constitution Act,1867. The Court upheld a federal law prohibiting the transport or sale of imported oil in a certain region of Ontario.
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.
The table below lists the reasons delivered from the bench by the Supreme Court of Canada during 2004. The table illustrates what reasons were filed by each justice in each case,and which justices joined each reason. This list,however,does not include decisions on motions.
The following is a list of Supreme Court of Canada opinions written by Beverley McLachlin during her tenure on the Court.
This is a list of all the opinions written by Claire L'Heureux-Dubéduring her tenure as puisne justice of the Supreme Court of Canada.
This is a list of all the reasons written by Michel Bastarache during his tenure as puisne justice of the Supreme Court of Canada.
The table below lists the reasons delivered from the bench by the Supreme Court of Canada during 2001. The table illustrates what reasons were filed by each justice in each case,and which justices joined each reason. This list,however,does not include decisions on motions.
List of reasons written by Justice Bertha Wilson during her time as puisne justice of the Supreme Court of Canada.
List of reasons written by Justice John Sopinka during his time as Puisne Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada.
This is a list of all the reasons written by Thomas Cromwell during his tenure as puisne justice of the Supreme Court of Canada.
The following is a list of Supreme Court of Canada opinions written by Sheilah Martin during her tenure on the Court.
Grassy Narrows First Nation v Ontario (Natural Resources) [2014] SCR 48,[2014] 2 S.C.R. 447 was a July 11,2014 decision by the Supreme Court of Canada in case number 35379 in which an appeal made by the Government of Ontario was allowed. The result of Grassy Narrows v. Ontario,while legal,was deemed unfair by some to Grassy Narrows First Nation,as "it has put them in a situation of having negotiated with a party who then ceased to be a party when it came to honouring the agreement."
Ontario v Fraser [2011] 2 SCR 3 is a Canadian labour law case concerning the protection of collective bargaining under section 2(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. At issue was an Ontario law that created a separate labour relations regime for agricultural workers. The Court considered the standard for establishing a breach of section 2(d) in cases where government action is alleged to interfere with collective bargaining rights. A majority of the Court upheld the law,finding no breach of sections 2(d) or 15 of the Charter.
References
- ↑ "Canada (Attorney General) v Federation of Law Societies of Canada, 2015 SCC 7". CanLII.
- ↑ "Loyola High School v Quebec (Attorney General), 2015 SCC 12". CanLII.
- ↑ "R v Nur, 2015 SCC 15". CanLII.
- ↑ "Henry v British Columbia (Attorney General), 2015 SCC 24". CanLII.
- ↑ "R v Kokopenace, 2015 SCC 28". CanLII.
- ↑ "R v Tatton, 2015 SCC 33". CanLII.
- ↑ "R v Rodgerson, 2015 SCC 38". CanLII.
- ↑ "R v Simpson, 2015 SCC 40". CanLII.
- ↑ "Wilson v British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles), 2015 SCC 47". CanLII.
- ↑ "Kanthasamy v Canada (Citizen and Immigration), 2015 SCC 61". CanLII.
- ↑ "R v Seruhungo, 2016 SCC 2". CanLII.
- ↑ "R v Spicer, 2016 SCC 3". CanLII.
- ↑ "Carter v Canada (Attorney General), 2016 SCC 4". CanLII.
- ↑ "World Bank Group v Wallace, 2016 SCC 15". CanLII.
- ↑ "R v Saeed, 2016 SCC 24". CanLII.
- ↑ "R v Vassell, 2016 SCC 26". CanLII.
- ↑ "R v Jordan, 2016 SCC 27". CanLII.
- ↑ "R v Williamson, 2016 SCC 28". CanLII.
- ↑ "R v Anthony-Cook, 2016 SCC 43". CanLII.
- ↑ "Morasse v Nadeau-Dubois, 2016 SCC 44". CanLII.
- ↑ "Windsor (City) v Canadian Transit Co., 2016 SCC 54". CanLII.