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.
Landmark court decisions, in present-day common law legal systems, establish precedents that determine a significant new legal principle or concept, or otherwise substantially affect the interpretation of existing law. "Leading case" is commonly used in the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth jurisdictions instead of "landmark case" as used in the United States.
Pith and substance is a legal doctrine in Canadian constitutional interpretation used to determine under which head of power a given piece of legislation falls. The doctrine is primarily used when a law is challenged on the basis that one level of government has encroached upon the exclusive jurisdiction of another level of government.
The court system of Canada forms the judicial branch of government, formally known as "The Queen on the Bench", which interprets the law and is made up of many courts differing in levels of legal superiority and separated by jurisdiction. Some of the courts are federal in nature, while others are provincial or territorial.
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.
The judiciary of Australia comprises judges who sit in federal courts and courts of the States and Territories of Australia. The High Court of Australia sits at the apex of the Australian court hierarchy as the ultimate court of appeal on matters of both federal and State law.
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: Namely, Canadian judges would be reassured that they could indeed strike down statutes on the basis that they contradicted a bill of rights.
Reference Re Amendments to the Residential Tenancies Act (NS), [1996] 1 S.C.R. 186 is a reference question put to the Supreme Court of Canada regarding the ability of the federal government to appoint judges under section 96 of the Constitution Act, 1867.
Canada v Paul L'Anglais Inc [1983] 1 S.C.R. 147 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada constitutional decision on the jurisdiction of the superior courts to hear constitutional arguments. The unanimous Court found that Courts of Inherent Jurisdiction such as the Quebec Superior Court had concurrent jurisdiction to hear constitutional cases.
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.
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. This includes both criminal as well as regulatory offences, as it provides rights for those accused by the state for public offences. There are nine enumerated rights protected in section 11.
Childs v Desormeaux, 2006 SCC 18 is a Supreme Court of Canada decision on the topic of social host liability. The Court held that a social host does not owe a duty of care to a person injured by a guest who has consumed alcohol.
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.
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.
Crevier v Quebec (AG), [1981] 2 S.C.R. 220 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision in administrative law. The court had to decide whether a Quebec-created Professionals Tribunal was unconstitutional due to being a "s. 96 court" according to the Constitution Act, 1867, whose members can only be federally appointed. It found that any legislation which has a privative clause purporting to exclude review of jurisdictional matters is outside the jurisdiction of a provincial legislature.
The Preamble to the Constitution Act, 1867 provides:
An ouster clause or privative clause is, in countries with common law legal systems, a clause or provision included in a piece of legislation by a legislative body to exclude judicial review of acts and decisions of the executive by stripping the courts of their supervisory judicial function. According to the doctrine of the separation of powers, one of the important functions of the judiciary is to keep the executive in check by ensuring that its acts comply with the law, including, where applicable, the constitution. Ouster clauses prevent courts from carrying out this function, but may be justified on the ground that they preserve the powers of the executive and promote the finality of its acts and decisions.
Section 92(14) of the Constitution Act, 1867, also known as the administration of justice power, grants the provincial legislatures of Canada the authority to legislate on:
In Canada, judicial review is the process that allows courts to supervise administrative tribunals' exercise of their statutory powers. Judicial review of administrative action is only available for decisions made by a governmental or quasi-governmental authority. The process allows individuals to challenge state actions, and ensures that decisions made by administrative tribunals follow the rule of law. The practice is meant to ensure that powers delegated by government to boards and tribunals are not abused, and offers legal recourse when that power is misused, or the law is misapplied. Judicial review is meant to be a last resort for those seeking to redress a decision of an administrative decision maker.
