Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

Last updated

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. [1] 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.

Contents

Section 1 of the Charter permits Parliament or the provincial legislatures to enact laws that place certain kinds of limited restrictions on the freedoms listed under section 2. Additionally, these freedoms can be temporarily invalidated by section 33, the "notwithstanding clause", of the Charter.

As a part of the Charter and of the larger Constitution Act, 1982 , section 2 took legal effect on April 17, 1982. However, many of its rights have roots in Canada in the 1960 Canadian Bill of Rights (although this law was of limited effectiveness), and in traditions under a theorized Implied Bill of Rights. Many of these exemptions, such as freedom of expression, have also been at the centre of federalistic disputes.

Text

Under the heading of "Fundamental Freedoms" the section states:

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

(a) freedom of conscience and religion;

(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and

(d) freedom of association.

Freedom of religion

Background

According to Beverley McLachlin, freedom of religion in Canada may have originated as early as 1759, when French Canadian Roman Catholics were allowed rights of worship by their British conquerors; this was later reconfirmed in 1774 in the Quebec Act . Later the Constitution Act, 1867 provided for denominational school rights [2] (these are reaffirmed by section 29 of the Charter). Discussions of church-state relations also took place in the Guibord case of 1874. In 1955, the Supreme Court ruled in Chaput v Romain, [3] regarding Jehovah's Witnesses, that different religion have rights, based upon tradition and the rule of law (at the time no statutes formed the basis for this argument). [4]

Religious freedom was later included in the Canadian Bill of Rights. However, its effectiveness was limited. When Sunday closing laws compelling respect for the Christian Sabbath were challenged in R v Robertson and Rosetanni, [5] Justice Ritchie of the Supreme Court found that non-Christians merely lost money when denied rights to work on Sunday and were otherwise free to believe in and observe their religions.

Definition

Freedom of religion under section 2(a) of the Charter was first seriously considered by the Supreme Court in R v Big M Drug Mart Ltd . [6] In that case, Chief Justice Brian Dickson wrote that this freedom at least includes freedom of religious speech, including "the right to entertain such religious beliefs as a person chooses, the right to declare religious beliefs openly and without fear of hindrance or reprisal, and the right to manifest religious belief by worship and practice or by teaching and dissemination." Freedom of religion would also prohibit imposing religious requirements. The immediate consequence of section 2, in this case, was the abolishment of federal Sunday closing laws.

In Syndicat Northcrest v Amselem , [7] the Supreme Court drew up a definition of freedom of religion under the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms , mindful of the overlap with section 2(a). The majority found freedom of religion encompasses a right to religious practices if the individual has a sincere belief that the practice is connected to religion. It would not matter whether the practice was needed according to religious authority. If courts can believe an individual is telling the truth in saying a practice is connected to religion, the courts then ask whether the infringement of freedom of religion is severe enough to trigger section 2. The Court also said religious beliefs are vacillating, so courts trying to determine an individual belief should be mindful that beliefs may change. Following this test in Multani v Commission scolaire Marguerite‑Bourgeoys , [8] the Court found freedom of religion should protect a non-violent Sikh student's right to wear a kirpan (dagger) in school.

In R v NS, [9] the Supreme Court sought to find a middle ground on the issue of whether a witness can wear a face-covering niqāb while testifying in a criminal trial. The court found that the right to religious freedom must be balanced against the right of the accused to a fair trial.

Freedom of conscience

In addition to freedom of religion, section 2(a) also guarantees freedom of conscience. Professor Peter Hogg speculated this would include a right to atheism, despite the preamble to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which recognizes the "supremacy of God". [10] The right has not spawned a great deal of case law, although Justice Bertha Wilson did rely on it in her opinion in R v Morgentaler . [11] Finding laws against abortion to be a breach of the rights to liberty and security of the person under section 7 of the Charter, Wilson then argued this infringement could not be justified as being consistent with fundamental justice. The legal protections found under fundamental justice could be defined as including other rights under the Charter, and in particular abortion laws breached freedom of conscience. As she wrote, the "decision whether or not to terminate a pregnancy is essentially a moral decision, a matter of conscience". She then said, "[C]onscientious beliefs which are not religiously motivated are equally protected by freedom of conscience in s. 2(a)." No other judges joined Wilson's opinion.

Jean Chrétien, who was the attorney general during negotiations of the Charter, later recalled in his memoirs that freedom of conscience was nearly excluded from the Charter. The federal and provincial negotiators found the right too difficult to define, and Chrétien eventually agreed to remove it. A legal advisor for the federal government, Pierre Genest, then kicked Chrétien's chair, prompting Chrétien to joke, "I guess we leave it in. Trudeau's spy just kicked me in the ass." [12]

Freedom of expression

Freedom of expression, section 2(b), is perhaps one of the most significant Charter rights in influencing Canadian society. The right is expressly named in the charter because although "Canadian criminal law uses the standard of the reasonable person as a ... definition for the threshold of criminality", the Charter expressly limits some forms of expression. [13] Justice Peter Cory wrote that it "is difficult to imagine a guaranteed right more important to a democratic society". [14] The section has been at the centre of a great amount of case law.

Background

Freedom of speech had a limited background in Canada. It has been an issue in federalism disputes, as provincial legislation infringing upon free speech has been taken as criminal legislation, which only the Parliament of Canada can validly create under section 91(27) of the Constitution Act, 1867 . Switzman v Elbling [15] is an example of a case in which this was discussed. An Implied Bill of Rights theory further stated governments were limited in their abilities to infringe upon free speech under the preamble of the Constitution Act, 1867. This preamble states Canada's constitution would be based upon Britain's, and Britain had limited free speech in 1867. Furthermore, free speech is considered to be necessary for a parliamentary government to function. [16]

Free speech was later included in the Canadian Bill of Rights.

Definition

The meaning of "expression" within section 2(b) has been read broadly as including any activity that conveys, or attempts to convey, meaning [17] to the exception of acts of violence and threats of violence. [18] However, the Courts have tried to maintain content neutrality by not considering the value of the expression. Instead, the content is only examined during the section 1 analysis.

Freedom of expression is primarily seen as a negative right. In Native Women's Association of Canada v Canada , [19] the Court considered a claim that the government had to financially support an interest group in constitutional negotiations, as it had supported others. Section 28 (sexual equality under the Charter) was used to reinforce this argument, since the rights claimants were an interest group. Still, while the Supreme Court agreed discussions with the government is "unquestionably" a form of expression, the government did not seem to be guilty of suppressing any expression and thus the claim was dismissed.

Limiting the right

A law will be found to violate the freedom of expression where the law either has the purpose or effect of violating the right.

A law's purpose can limit the right either through limiting the content or form of expression. Limits on content are where the meaning of the expression is specifically forbidden by the law, such as hate-speech law, and is the most easily identifiable form of limitation. [20] Limiting the form of the expression can often invoke section 2(b) as it will often have the effect of limiting the content as well. [21]

Where a law does not intend to limit the freedom of expression it may still infringe section 2(b) through its effects. [22] A law will be found to restrict expression if it has the effect of frustrating "the pursuit of truth, participation in the community, or individual self-fulfillment and human flourishing".

Commercial expression

Commercial expression is recognized as an activity protected under section 2(b). This includes advertising and any other similar means of expression used to sell goods and services. Even false or misleading advertising is protected. The value of the expression does not come into play until the section 1 analysis.

The protection of commercial expression was first established in Ford v Quebec (AG) , [23] where the Court struck down a Quebec law requiring all signs to be exclusively in French. This was soon followed by Irwin Toy, [24] where the Court found that Quebec law prohibiting advertising to children violate section 2(b) but was saved under section 1.

The Supreme Court has also found that restrictions on advertising by professionals to be protected. [25] As well, even communications for the purpose of prostitution was found to be protected as commercial expression. [26]

Picketing

Protesting by labour groups and trade unions has long been recognized as a protected form of expression.

There are not many instances of limiting primary picketing. Typically, the debate has been over whether secondary picketing can be restricted; the practice of picketing businesses not directly involved in a labour dispute has in the past been banned under the common law. The most significant decision on limiting primary picketing is British Columbia Government Employees' Union v British Columbia (AG) , [27] where employees at the British Columbia Supreme Court, who were protesting as part of a province-wide public service employee strike, were ordered back to work by the Chief Justice of the court. The order was found to violate section 2(b) but the Supreme Court upheld it on section 1.

Freedom of thought, belief and opinion

Section 2(b) guarantees freedom of thought, belief and opinion in addition to freedom of expression. However, some have argued that freedoms of thought, belief and opinion in the Charter have had little practical consequence, and question whether governments can stifle unspoken thoughts in any case. [28]

Application in the civil context

The need to protect freedom of expression is considered a guiding principle of interpretation in civil cases between individuals. In Crookes v. Newton, [29] for example, the Supreme Court of Canada found that section 2(b) must be considered in determining the extent to which common law libel restrictions should apply to new technologies such as internet hyperlinks.

Freedom of peaceful assembly

Occupy Canada stages a peaceful assembly in Victoria Square in Montreal. Occupy Montreal - Global Day of Action - 2011-10-15 - Victoria Square - General assembly.jpg
Occupy Canada stages a peaceful assembly in Victoria Square in Montreal.

Freedom of peaceful assembly under section 2(c) has not had a major impact on the case law. In Reference Re Public Service Employee Relations Act (Alta) , [30] the Supreme Court found that despite being written as a separate right, it was closely related to freedom of expression. The Nova Scotia Supreme Court defined it in Fraser et al v AGNS et al (1986) as including rights to meet as part of a committee or as workers. If there are membership fees to attend a meeting, prohibitions on being able to spend money for membership would be an abridgement of the right to peaceful assembly. In 2011, Occupy Canada's protests in public parks raised questions of whether their eviction was prohibited by freedom of assembly, as well as expression and association. [31]

Freedom of association

Freedom of association is guaranteed under section 2(d). This right provides individuals with the right to establish, belong to and maintain to any sort of organization unless that organization is otherwise illegal. Generally, this is used in the labour context where employees are given the right to associate with certain unions or another similar group to represent their interests in labour disputes or negotiations.

It is important to note that this right only protects the right of individuals to form associations and not associations themselves. [32] Consequently, government legislation affecting the powers of established labour associations do not necessarily invoke section 2(d). It is only where legislation restricts the associative nature of the activity will section 2 be invoked. However, in the landmark Health Services and Support – Facilities Subsector Bargaining Association v British Columbia , [33] the Supreme Court ruled that freedom of association guaranteed by section 2(d) includes a procedural right to collective bargaining. The Court ruled in this case that legislation that "substantially interferes" with the process of collective bargaining is a section 2(d) infringement. The test for "substantial interference" is twofold: (1) the importance of the matter affected to the process of collective bargaining, and more specifically, the capacity of union members to come together and pursue collective goals in concert; and (2) how the measure impacts on the collective right to good faith negotiation and consultation. [34] It is not certain whether the decision in Health Services overturns jurisprudence arising from the so-called "labour trilogy" cases of 1987 which found that section 2(d) did not include a right to collective bargaining. [35]

The Supreme Court has since found in Ontario (AG) v Fraser, [36] that the right to collective bargaining does not require the government to take an active role in promoting and fostering collective bargaining, but merely to refrain from excessive interference with the collective bargaining process. In effect, the right to collective bargaining "guarantees a process, not a result". Fraser was affirmed and expanded upon by the Court of Appeal for Ontario in 2012 in Association of Justice Counsel v Canada (AG). [37]

Typically, where a union is denied a right it does not preclude the employees from forming a separate association. In Delisle v Canada (Deputy AG) , [38] members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police were excluded from the public services legislation. The Supreme Court held that they were not precluded from forming their association outside of the impugned legislation. However, in contrast, the decision of Dunmore v Ontario (AG) [39] indicated that agricultural workers who were excluded from provincial labour relations legislation were entitled to be included because individually they were unable to form their associations, and consequently, this imposed a duty upon the government to include them.

The freedom of association also includes the freedom not to associate. [40] In certain employment circumstances, employees are required to contribute to a union as conditions of their employment (see Rand formula). However, mandatory associations do not invoke section 2(d) in and of themselves. In Lavigne, the Court found that the right not to be associated extended only to where the association supported causes that went beyond what is necessary for employee representation. More generally, the Supreme Court had stated that the right is violated only when the mandatory association imposes "ideological conformity". [41] Such violations have also mostly been found by the Supreme Court to be justified under section 1, resulting in a right not to associate that has more theoretical than practical effects.

In Advance Cutting & Coring, [42] the Supreme Court was called to examine the constitutional validity of a Quebec law that required all persons working in the province's construction industry to join a designated union. Eight of nine judges (Justice Claire L'Heureux-Dubé dissenting) confirmed that section 2 includes, to at least some degree, the negative right to not associate. With a majority of five judges to four, the Court determined that the law at issue violated this right. But with the same majority (judge Frank Iacobucci "switching camps" on the two issues and citing a "unique and complex historical context" in Quebec), the Court deemed the law to be justified in a free and democratic society under section 1 and thus constitutional.

See also

Related Research Articles

<i>Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms</i> 1982 Canadian constitutional legislation

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.

In Canadian and New Zealand law, fundamental justice is the fairness underlying the administration of justice and its operation. The principles of fundamental justice are specific legal principles that command "significant societal consensus" as "fundamental to the way in which the legal system ought fairly to operate", per R v Malmo-Levine. These principles may stipulate basic procedural rights afforded to anyone facing an adjudicative process or procedure that affects fundamental rights and freedoms, and certain substantive standards related to the rule of law that regulate the actions of the state.

The Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, also known as the "Quebec Charter", is a statutory bill of rights and human rights code passed by the National Assembly of Quebec on June 27, 1975. It received Royal Assent from Lieutenant Governor Hugues Lapointe, coming into effect on June 28, 1976. Introduced by the Liberal government of Robert Bourassa, the Charter followed extensive preparatory work that began under the Union Nationale government of Daniel Johnson.

<i>R v Big M Drug Mart Ltd</i> Landmark Supreme Court of Canada decision striking down a mandatory Sunday closing law

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.

In Canadian labour law, the Rand formula is a workplace compromise arising from jurisprudence struck between organized labour and employers that guarantees employers industrial stability by requiring all workers affected by a collective agreement to pay dues to the union by mandatory deduction in exchange for the union agreement to "work now, grieve later."

Section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the section that confirms that the rights listed in the Charter are guaranteed. The section is also known as the reasonable limits clause or limitations clause, as it legally allows the government to limit an individual's Charter rights. This limitation on rights has been used in the last twenty years to prevent a variety of objectionable conduct such as child pornography, hate speech, and obscenity.

Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a constitutional provision that protects an individual's autonomy and personal legal rights from actions of the government in Canada. There are three types of protection within the section: the right to life, liberty and security of the person. Denials of these rights are constitutional only if the denials do not breach what is referred to as fundamental justice.

<i>Reference Re BC Motor Vehicle Act</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

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 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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Freedom of religion in Canada</span> Overview of religious freedom in Canada

Freedom of religion in Canada is a constitutionally protected right, allowing believers the freedom to assemble and worship without limitation or interference.

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>Irwin Toy Ltd v Quebec (AG)</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Irwin Toy Ltd v Quebec (AG), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 927 is a landmark Supreme Court of Canada decision on freedom of expression in section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The court held that in order to determine if a breach of section 2(b) had occurred one first had to determine whether the conduct constituted non violent activity which attempted to convey meaning. This changed the law of the constitution of Quebec. The next step was to consider whether the effect or purpose of the legislation was to restrict freedom of expression. Applying the analysis, the Court held that a Quebec law that restricted advertising directed to children was valid law which violated section 2(b) but could be justified under section 1.

<i>Dunmore v Ontario (AG)</i> 2001 Canadian Supreme Court decision on freedom of association

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.

<i>Prostitution Reference</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Reference re ss. 193 & 195.1(1)(c) of the Criminal Code (Man.) [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1123, commonly known as the Prostitution Reference, is a 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, and on prostitution in Canada. Manitoba's Appeal Court had ruled the legislation violated the guarantee of freedom of expression in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, by constraining communication in relation to legal activity. The case was referred to the Supreme court.

<i>Lavigne v Ontario Public Service Employees Union</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Canadian administrative law</span> Law governing the government agencies of Canada

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 such as a board, tribunal, commission, agency, or Crown minister, while exercising ministerial discretion.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Human rights in Canada</span>

Human rights in Canada have come under increasing public attention and legal protection since World War II. Prior to that time, there were few legal protections for human rights. The protections which did exist focused on specific issues, rather than taking a general approach to human rights.

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.

<i>Saskatchewan Federation of Labour v Saskatchewan</i>

Saskatchewan Federation of Labour v Saskatchewan [2015] 1 SCR 245 is a Canadian labour law case on the right to strike.

<i>Health Services and Support – Facilities Subsector Bargaining Assn. v British Columbia</i> Canadian labour law case

Health Services and Support – Facilities Subsector Bargaining Assn. v British Columbia[2007] 2 SCR 391 is a Canadian labour law case concerning freedom of association under section 2(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. A majority of the Supreme Court of Canada determined that the Charter protects a meaningful process of collective bargaining.

References

  1. ↑ Justice Laws Website, Site Web de la législation (Justice) (2014-01-30). "Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982". Archived from the original on 2014-01-19. Retrieved 2014-02-15. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms
  2. ↑ Beverley McLachlin, "Freedom of Religion and the Rule of Law: A Canadian Perspective," in Recognizing Religion in a Secular Society: Essays in Pluralism, Religion, and Public Policy. Ed. Douglas Farrow. McGill-Queen's University Press, 2004, pages 17–18.
  3. ↑ [1955] SCR 834.
  4. ↑ McLachlin, "Freedom of Religion and the Rule of Law: A Canadian Perspective," pages 19–20.
  5. ↑ [1963] SCR 651
  6. ↑ [1985] 1 SCR 295.
  7. ↑ 2004 SCC 47.
  8. ↑ 2006 SCC 6.
  9. ↑ 2012 SCC 72.
  10. ↑ Hogg, Peter W. Canada Act 1982 Annotated. Toronto, Canada: The Carswell Company Limited, 1982.
  11. ↑ [1998] 1 SCR 30.
  12. ↑ Chrétien, Jean. Straight from the Heart. (Key Porter Books Limited, 1994), p. 173.
  13. ↑ Mikus, Rudolf Alexander. (1995). The reasonable person in substantive Canadian Criminal Law (T). Retrieved from https://open.library.ubc.ca/cIRcle/collections/831/items/1.0077473
  14. ↑ Edmonton Journal v Alberta (AG) , [1989] 2 SCR 1326 at 1336.
  15. ↑ [1957] SCR 285.
  16. ↑ Hogg, Peter W. Constitutional Law of Canada. 2003 Student Ed. (Scarborough, Ontario: Thomson Canada Limited, 2003), p. 686.
  17. ↑ Irwin Toy Ltd v Quebec (AG) , [1989] 1 SCR 927 [Irwin Toy].
  18. ↑ See Ibid and United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 1518 v KMart Canada Ltd .
  19. ↑ [1994] 3 SCR 627.
  20. ↑ see e.g. Reference Re ss 193 & 195.1(1)(c) of Criminal Code (Canada) , [1990] 1 SCR 1123 [Prostitution Reference]; R v Keegstra , [1990] 3 SCR 697; and R v Butler , [1992] 1 SCR 452.
  21. ↑ For example, instead of banning rock music (the content), banning FM radio (the method of conveying the music).
  22. ↑ Ramsden v Peterborough (City of) , [1993] 2 SCR 1084.
  23. ↑ [1988] 2 SCR 712.
  24. ↑ Supra.
  25. ↑ Rocket v Royal College of Dental Surgeons of Ontario , [1990] 2 SCR 232.
  26. ↑ Prostitution Reference, supra.
  27. ↑ [1988] 2 SCR 214.
  28. ↑ Hogg, Peter W. Constitutional Law of Canada. 2003 Student Ed. (Scarborough, Ontario: Thomson Canada Limited, 2003), p. 917.
  29. ↑ "Crookes v. Newton, 2011 SCC 47 | Charter Cases".
  30. ↑ [1987] 1 SCR 313 [Alberta Reference].
  31. ↑ Mark Gollom, "Will charter protect Occupy protesters from eviction?", CBC News, 18 November 2011, URL accessed 18 November 2011.
  32. ↑ Alberta Reference, supra.
  33. ↑ 2007 SCC 27 [Health Services].
  34. ↑ Health Services, supra at 394.
  35. ↑ Health Services, supra at 413.
  36. ↑ 2011 SCC 20 [Fraser].
  37. ↑ Association of Justice Counsel v. Canada (Attorney General) , 2012 ONCA 530 , Court of Appeal (Ontario,Canada)
  38. ↑ [1999] 2 SCR 989.
  39. ↑ 2001 SCC 94.
  40. ↑ Lavigne v Ontario Public Service Employees Union , [1991] 2 SCR 211 [Lavigne].
  41. ↑ R v Advance Cutting & Coring Ltd , 2001 SCC 70 [Advance Cutting & Coring].
  42. ↑ Supra.
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.