Reasons of the Supreme Court of Canada by Justice Sopinka

Last updated

List of reasons written by Justice John Sopinka during his time as Puisne Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada.

John Sopinka Canadian judge

John Sopinka, was a Canadian lawyer and puisne justice on the Supreme Court of Canada, the first Ukrainian-Canadian appointed to the high court.

A puisne judge or puisne justice is a dated term for an ordinary judge or a judge of lesser rank of a particular court. Puisne is a homophone of puny as well as that word's root, meaning weak or inferior in size. The spoken form holds a negative connotation, and it has been of scarce use outside of the judiciary themselves since the middle of the 20th century.

Supreme Court of Canada highest court of Canada

The Supreme Court of Canada is the highest court of Canada, the final court of appeals in the Canadian justice system. The court grants permission to between 40 and 75 litigants each year to appeal decisions rendered by provincial, territorial and federal appellate courts. Its decisions are the ultimate expression and application of Canadian law and binding upon all lower courts of Canada, except to the extent that they are overridden or otherwise made ineffective by an Act of Parliament or the Act of a provincial legislative assembly pursuant to section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Contents

1988–1990

<i>United States v Cotroni</i>

United States v Cotroni [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1469 was a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada on extradition and freedom of movement under section 6 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Court found extradition violates section 6 but is a justified infringement under section 1 of the Charter. The case was decided with United States v El Zein.

<i>R v Hebert</i>

R v Hebert [1990] 2 S.C.R. 151 is the leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on an accused's right to silence under section seven of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

<i>Central Alberta Dairy Pool v Alberta (Human Rights Commission)</i>

Central Alberta Dairy Pool v Alberta , [1990] 2 SCR 489, is a leading human rights law decision of the Supreme Court of Canada. The Court expanded on the concept of accommodation up to undue hardship first established in Ontario v Simpsons-Sears Ltd, [1985] 2 SCR 536 and provided a set of factors to consider when evaluating undue hardship.

1991–1993

<i>Reference re Provincial Electoral Boundaries (Sask)</i>

Reference Re Provincial Electoral Boundaries (Sask), [1991] 2 S.C.R. 158 is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the right to vote under section 3 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Court rejected the US principle of "one man, one vote" from the US Supreme Court decision of Baker v. Carr (1962), and instead held that the right to vote meant "effective representation".

<i>Reference Re Canada Assistance Plan (BC)</i>

Reference Re Canada Assistance Plan (BC), [1991] 2 S.C.R. 525 is a leading constitutional decision of the Supreme Court of Canada. The Court held that courts have a residual discretion to refuse to answer reference questions where there is insufficient legal content or where the court would be unable to provide a complete and accurate answer.

<i>R v Stinchcombe</i>

R v Stinchcombe, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 326 is a landmark Supreme Court of Canada decision on the disclosure of evidence in a trial and is considered by most to be one of the most significant criminal law cases of the decade. The Court found that the Crown had a duty to provide the defence with all evidence that could possibly be relevant to the case, regardless of whether the Crown plans to call that evidence at trial or not, or whether it helps or hurts the Crown's case. This case put to rest the long-standing issue of whether the Crown could purposely deny the defence evidence that the Crown found would be harmful to their case.

1994–1997

<i>Native Womens Assn of Canada v Canada</i>

Native Women's Assn of Canada v Canada, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 627, was a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada on section 2, section 15 and section 28 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, in which the Court decided against the claim that the government of Canada had an obligation to financially support an interest group in constitutional negotiations, to allow the group to speak for its people. The case resulted from negotiations for the Charlottetown Accord, in which various groups representing Aboriginal peoples in Canada were financially supported by the government, but the Native Women's Association of Canada (NWAC) was not. Since NWAC claimed the other Aboriginal groups primarily represented Aboriginal men, it argued that section 28 could be used so that section 2 required the government to provide an equal benefit to Aboriginal women, supposedly represented by NWAC.

<i>R v Mohan</i>

R v Mohan1994 CanLII 80, [1994] 2 SCR 9 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on the use of expert witnesses in trial testimony.

<i>R v Daviault</i>

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.

Note: This list is incomplete

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.

Related Research Articles

<i>Egan v Canada</i> decision of the Supreme Court of Canada

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.

In Canadian law, a reference question or reference case is a submission by the federal or a provincial government to the courts asking for an advisory opinion on a major legal issue. Typically the question concerns the constitutionality of legislation.

<i>Reference Re BC Motor Vehicle Act</i>

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.

Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ("Charter") is the section of the Constitution of Canada that lists what the Charter calls "fundamental freedoms" theoretically applying to everyone in Canada, regardless of whether they are a Canadian citizen, or an individual or corporation. These freedoms can be held against actions of all levels of government and are enforceable by the courts. The fundamental freedoms are freedom of expression, freedom of religion, freedom of thought, freedom of belief, freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of association.

<i>Delgamuukw v British Columbia</i> decision of the Supreme Court of Canada

Delgamuukw v British Columbia, [1997] 3 SCR 1010, also known as Delgamuukw v The Queen, 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 kilometres in northwest British Columbia. The plaintiffs lost the case at trial, but the Supreme Court of Canada 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.

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.

<i>Calder v British Columbia (AG)</i> decision of the Supreme Court of Canada

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.

<i>Douglas/Kwantlen Faculty Assn v Douglas College</i>

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.

Reasons of the Supreme Court of Canada by Chief Justice McLachlin

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 Frank Iacobucci during his tenure as puisne justice of the Supreme Court of Canada.

This is a list of all the opinions written by Claire L'Heureux-Dubé during 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.

This is a list of all the reasons written by Marshall Rothstein during his tenure as puisne justice of the Supreme Court of Canada.

This is a list of opinions written by Antonio Lamer during his tenure as on the Supreme Court of Canada between March 28, 1980 and January 6, 2000.

This is a list of opinions written by Peter Cory, during his tenure on the Supreme Court of Canada between 1 February 1989 and 1 August 2003.

Canadian administrative law is the body of law that addresses the actions and operations of governments and governmental agencies in Canada. That is, the law concerns the manner in which courts can review the decisions of administrative decision-makers (ADMs) such as a board, tribunal, commission, agency or minister.

List of reasons written by Justice Bertha Wilson during her time as puisne justice of the Supreme Court of Canada.

In Canada, the term quasi-constitutional is used for laws which remain paramount even when subsequent statutes, which contradict them, are enacted by the same legislature. This is the reverse of the normal practice, under which newer laws trump any contradictory provisions in any older statute.