The Supreme Court decided that the act violated the fundamental freedoms of religion protected by the Charter. This is because the act forced everyone in Canada to observe the rules of one religion Christianity , which limited the freedom of religion of those who did not share the same beliefs or practices.
This case recognizes that laws with the purpose of obliging Canadians to conform to a specific religious tradition cannot be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. A provision in a provincial Motor Vehicle Act stated that anyone found guilty of driving on a highway without a license or with a suspended license would face an automatic prison sentence.
This meant that drivers could be found guilty even if they did not know that their license was suspended. The province of British Columbia asked the Supreme Court to decide whether this clause was consistent with the Charter. The majority of the Court found that the law was inconsistent with the Charter, based on the principle that no one should be put in jail if they have no intent to commit a criminal act.
This case was significant because the Court found that the Charter requires laws that can lead to imprisonment or other deprivations of life, liberty or security of the person must be procedurally and substantively fair to the accused person. David Oakes was charged with the possession of a narcotic under the Narcotics Control Act. The act assumed that those who had narcotics possessed them for the purpose of trafficking. The onus was on the accused to prove that this was not his or her intention.
Oakes argued that the act violated the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. The Supreme Court agreed and found that the offence violated the presumption of innocence because it required the accused to prove his innocence, rather than the Crown to prove his guilt. In the end, the Court struck down the offence because it was irrational to assume an individual was trafficking narcotics simply because they possessed small amounts of them.
This decision also set out the framework for determining whether a law that limits a Charter-protected right or freedom can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. Oakes,  1 SCR Doctors Morgentaler, Smoling and Scott ran a clinic in Toronto that performed abortions for women who did not have a certificate from an accredited or approved hospital as required by the Criminal Code. The doctors were charged with the intent to provide abortions in violation of the Criminal Code.
The majority of the Supreme Court decided to strike down the abortion provisions in the Criminal Code, because they forced women to carry a foetus to term unless they met certain criteria, like getting a certificate. The legislative scheme prevented many women from obtaining a legal abortion, even if carrying the foetus would cause them psychological or physical harm.
Since Parliament did not pass any law in response to this decision, abortion is no longer a criminal offence in Canada. Footnote 1. Morgentaler,  1 SCR Mark Andrews met all the requirements to become a lawyer in British Columbia, but he did not have Canadian citizenship. Because he did not meet the citizenship requirement, he was not accepted. Andrews challenged the provincial law, which prevented him from being a lawyer, arguing that it was discriminatory since it treated non-citizens and Canadian citizens differently. The majority of the Supreme Court decided that the provincial law infringed equality rights, because it did not let otherwise qualified people practice law solely because of their citizenship.
It has influenced the development of equality law well beyond the specific facts of Mr. Andrews v. Irwin Toy Ltd. The act did not allow commercial advertising aimed at children under The Supreme Court decided that while the act limited the freedom of expression of the toy company, this limit was reasonably justifiable because the law pursued the important goal of protecting children under 13 who were particularly vulnerable to commercial advertising.
This law did not go further than it needed to, since Irwin Toy Ltd. They submitted a proposal to the Minister of Education for a new French elementary school that would be administered by a committee of parents within a separate French school board, among other features. The Minister told them that it was a policy of the province to not create any French school jurisdictions.
The parents then submitted their proposal to two other school boards, but their proposals were rejected. Mahe and the others argued that their minority language educational rights were violated. Specifically, their right to a Francophone-run education system was violated. The Supreme Court found that minority language parents have some control over the education facilities in which their children are taught. It concluded that minority language educational rights guarantees these parents the right to manage and control a minority language school, and that adequate public funding must be provided for this purpose.
- old man and the sea thesis research paper.
- essay about giving and sharing.
- human trafficking research papers.
- admission essay teachers college?
- Law Case Study Examples | Allan Rouben!
- Navigation menu?
Mahe v. Alberta,  1 SCR James Keegstra was a high school teacher in Alberta who taught his students that Jewish people were evil. He also denied that the Holocaust occurred and said it was invented by Jewish people to gain sympathy. Keegstra was convicted for promoting hatred against an identifiable group based on these statements to his students. Keegstra argued that the Criminal Code prohibitions on hate speech infringed his freedom of expression. The Supreme Court confirmed that the Charter protects all forms of speech, including hate speech, so long as it does not include violence.
This is because the limits aimed to protect groups targeted by hate speech and to promote positive relations in a country dedicated to equality and multiculturalism. The Keegstra case serves as a reminder that freedom of expression is not absolute and can be limited in situations where there is a need to balance competing interests like respect for difference, equality and multiculturalism. Keegstra,  3 SCR William Stinchcombe was a Calgary lawyer who was charged with breach of trust, theft and fraud. This is because section 7 protects the right of accused persons facing potential prison sentences to know the case against them, so that they are able to defend themselves.
The ability of an accused person to make full answer and defence to the charges against them is essential to protect trial fairness and the truth-seeking function of a court. The case was sent back to trial so that Stinchcombe could be fairly tried. This decision had a significant impact on increasing basic fairness in the criminal justice system.
As a result of this case, the prosecution must now make all relevant information about a case available to a defendant. Stinchcombe,  3 SCR Fortunately, they did not sustain any serious injuries. At his trial, Swain testified that during the incident, he believed he had to protect his wife and children from devils. Swain remained out of custody until the conclusion of his trial. In addition, the Court struck down the automatic detention scheme since it deprived the accused of liberty based on an arbitrary standard there was essentially no standard at all and without adequate procedural protections.
As a result of this decision, Parliament modernized Part XX.abhegelni.tk
Finding and Researching Cases – Alberta Law Libraries
Swain,  1 SCR Shalom Schachter took three weeks off work without pay to stay home with his newborn. His application was denied. Schachter argued that he was the subject of discrimination because the act treated natural parents and adoptive parents differently. The Supreme Court agreed, concluding that the act created unequal benefits, contrary to the equality rights guaranteed by section 15 of the Charter.
The Court used this case to explain what courts could do when one part of a law unjustifiably limits Charter-protected rights and freedoms.
Top 5 Employment Law Cases of 2018
When this happens, courts can strike down the part of the law that is inconsistent with the Charter, among other remedies. In some circumstances, courts can also read words into the law to make it consistent with the Charter. Schachter v. Canada ,  2 SCR Four men who were members of a Catholic religious order were charged with sexual assault. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the National Film Board argued that this ban violated their freedom of expression. Though the ban was meant to prevent this risk, it was too broad in its application. The Court held that the ban was unconstitutional and infringed freedom of expression because it was unjustifiable.
Freedom of expression and the press are necessary features to a free and democratic society. Any measures that ban media from publishing information of interest restricts these freedoms and must be justified as reasonable and proportionate to the reason for the ban. Dagenais v.
5 Canadian court cases that gripped us in 2017
Canadian Broadcasting Corp. They preferred to communicate through sign language. While provincial law provided funding for medically required services, no funding was available for sign language interpreters.
They argued that this infringed their equality rights. The Supreme Court agreed, concluding that their equality rights were infringed because they were denied the equal benefit of access to medical care based on their disability. Without sign language interpreters, people who are deaf would not be able to effectively communicate with their doctors, which increases the risk of misdiagnosis and ineffective treatment.
The case shows that equality does not necessarily mean identical treatment for everybody. In certain cases, disadvantaged groups may need more services or programs. Governments, employers and service providers need to consider the need to eliminate barriers to allow for the full participation of persons with disabilities in Canadian society. Eldridge v.
Delwin Vriend worked as a laboratory coordinator at a college in Edmonton, Alberta. After he disclosed that he was homosexual, Vriend was fired from his position. Vriend wanted to make a complaint with the Alberta Human Rights Commission that his employer had discriminated against him. Vriend argued that failing to include sexual orientation as a prohibited ground of discrimination infringed his equality rights.
The Supreme Court agreed and confirmed that sexual orientation is a prohibited ground of discrimination under the Charter, even though it is not specifically listed. This case is important for many different reasons, including its discussion of how even human rights laws may violate equality rights when they fail to protect specific groups of individuals who have historically been discriminated against.
Vriend v. The act defined a spouse as a person who is legally married or an unmarried man or woman who has lived with a member of the opposite sex for at least three years. The Supreme Court found that the act discriminated against people in same-sex relationships.
The act implied that their relationships were less valuable, less worthy of recognition and less worthy of legal protection than the relationships of opposite-sex couples. Because of this landmark case, legislation that discriminated against same-sex couples was changed across Canada. This case helped pave the way for full marriage equality to be achieved across Canada in The Minister wanted to extend the custody order for another six months. G challenged the provincial legal aid program, arguing that it violated her right to security of the person because the hearing would not be fair if she did not have legal representation.
This means that the Charter guarantees the parent a right to a fair hearing in such cases, which may require legal representation for the parent. Little Sisters was a specialized bookstore that sold books primarily to the gay and lesbian community. The bookstore imported most of its material from the United States. Little Sisters challenged the customs rules, arguing that the regime violated freedom of expression and the equality rights of the LGBTQ2 community. The Supreme Court concluded that the customs regime did limit freedom of expression, but that most of the law could be justified as a reasonable limit on this right.