External links
  | This article about Canadian law is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |
Rocket v Royal College of Dental Surgeons of Ontario, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 232 is a leading constitutional decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the right to freedom of expression under section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms . The Court struck down a law prohibiting professionals from advertising as it was too broad.
Dr. Rocket and Dr. Price were dentists practising in Ontario. They started an advertisement campaign to promote their practice. They were charged with violating the prohibition of advertising under the Health Disciplines Act.
Justice McLachlin, writing for a unanimous Court, held that the Act violated section 2(b) of the Charter and it could not be saved under section 1 of the Charter. Consequently, the law must be struck down.
| | This article about Canadian law is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |
Section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is part of the Constitution of Canada. It is commonly known as the notwithstanding clause, sometimes referred to as the override power, and it allows Parliament or provincial legislatures to temporarily override sections 2 and 7–15 of the Charter.
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, often simply referred to as the Charter in Canada, is a bill of rights entrenched in the Constitution of Canada, forming the first part of the Constitution Act, 1982. The Charter guarantees certain political rights to Canadian citizens and civil rights of everyone in Canada from the policies and actions of all governments in Canada. It is designed to unify Canadians around a set of principles that embody those rights. The Charter was proclaimed in force by Queen Elizabeth II of Canada on April 17, 1982, as part of the Constitution Act, 1982.
R v Big M Drug Mart Ltd(Her Majesty The Queen in Right of Canada v Big M Drug Mart Ltd) is a landmark decision by Supreme Court of Canada where the Court struck down the federal Lord's Day Act for violating section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This case had many firsts in constitutional law including being the first to interpret section 2.
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.
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. Canadian judges would be reassured that they could indeed strike down statutes on the basis that they contradicted a bill of rights.
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. There are nine enumerated rights protected in section 11.
Little Sisters Book and Art Emporium v Canada (Minister of Justice) [2000] 2 S.C.R. 1120, 2000 SCC 69 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on freedom of expression and equality rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It was held that the Customs Act, which gave broad powers to customs inspectors to exclude "obscene" materials, violated the right to freedom of expression under section 2 but was justifiable under section 1.
R v Zundel [1992] 2 S.C.R. 731 is a Supreme Court of Canada decision where the Court struck down the provision in the Criminal Code that prohibited publication of false news on the basis that it violated the freedom of expression provision under section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
RJR-MacDonald Inc v Canada (AG), [1995] 3 S.C.R. 199 is a leading Canadian constitutional decision of the Supreme Court of Canada what upheld the federal Tobacco Products Control Act but struck out the provisions that prevented tobacco advertising and unattributed health warnings.
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.
M v H [1999] 2 S.C.R. 3, is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the rights of same-sex couples to equal treatment under the Constitution of Canada.
Figueroa v Canada (AG), [2003] 1 S.C.R. 912 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on the right to participate in a federal election under section 3 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Court struck down a provision requiring a political party to nominate 50 candidates before receiving certain benefits.
Devine v Quebec (AG), [1988] 2 S.C.R. 790 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on the constitutional protection of minority language rights.
Dunmore v Ontario (AG), 2001 SCC 94 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on the constitutional right to freedom of association under section 2(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ("Charter"). The Court held that the lack of a positive framework that protected farm workers from employer reprisals for exercising their associational rights under the Charter constituted a "substantial interference" of their right to freedom of association. The Ontario government responded with the Agricultural Employees Protection Act, which extended only to agricultural workers and prohibited employer reprisals against employees exercising their rights under section 2(d) of the Charter.
Lavigne v Ontario Public Service Employees Union, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 211 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on freedom of expression under section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and freedom of association under section 2(d) of the Charter.
R v Andrews, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 870 is a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the freedom of expression under section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is a companion case to R v Keegstra. The Court upheld the criminal provision that prohibits communicating statements that wilfully promote hatred.
Ramsden v Peterborough (City of), [1993] 2 SCR 1084 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision where the Court struck down a bylaw prohibiting all postering on public property on the grounds that it violated freedom of expression under section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Black v Law Society of Alberta, [1989] 1 SCR 591 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada on the freedom of mobility and freedom of association under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
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.
Mounted Police Association of Ontario v Canada [2015] 1 SCR 3 is a leading Canadian labour law case concerning freedom of association under section 2(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Court concluded that the exclusion of Royal Canadian Mounted Police officers from unionization and collective bargaining was unconstitutional, overruling Delisle v Canada. Along with Saskatchewan Federation of Labour v Saskatchewan and Meredith v Canada , the decision in MPAO represented a significant evolution in the interpretation of section 2(d), clarifying the legal standard applicable under that provision.