|
Canada (AG) V PHS Community Services Society
is a leading Supreme Court of Canada case dealing with the application of the criminal law and healthcare heads of power found in section 91 and section 92 of the ''Constitution Act, 1867'' and the principles of fundamental justice in section 7 of the ''Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms''. Background In September 2003, the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority and the Portland Hotel Society opened Insite, North America's first supervised drug injection site, in Downtown Eastside Vancouver, an area of high drug use. s 4(1) and 5(1) of the ''Controlled Drugs and Substances Act'' (''CDSA'') prohibited the possession and trafficking of controlled substances, and so in order to operate, Insite was obligated to apply for an exemption for medical and scientific purposes from the ''CDSA''. The federal Minister of Health, whose discretionary powers under s 56 of the ''CDSA'' permitted the granting of exemptions, allowed Insite's application. Insite received further extensions on ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Minister Of Health (Canada)
The minister of health (french: ministre de la Santé) is the minister of the Crown in the Canadian Cabinet who is responsible for overseeing health-focused government agencies including Health Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada, as well as enforcing the ''Canada Health Act'', the law governing Canada's universal health care system. The current minister is Jean-Yves Duclos. The minister of health is responsible for maintaining and improving the health of Canadians. The minister is responsible for the Health Portfolio, which comprises: * Canadian Food Inspection Agency * Canadian Institutes of Health Research * Health Canada * Patented Medicine Prices Review Board * Public Health Agency of Canada The Health Portfolio consists of approximately 12,500 full-time equivalent employees and an annual budget of over $3.8 billion. History The first Department of Health was established in 1919, and unlike most other departments, had no designated minister. The president o ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Double Aspect
Double aspect is a legal doctrine in Canadian constitutional law that allows for laws to be created by both provincial and federal governments in relation to the same subject matter. Typically, the federalist system assigns subject matters of legislation to a single head of power. However, certain matters have several dimensions to them, such that for one purpose the matter will fall to one head of power, while for another purpose, it will fall to the other. For example, highway traffic laws fall into the property and civil rights power of the province, but equally, can be a criminal offence which is in the criminal law power of the federal government. The origin of the doctrine comes from the Privy Council decision of '' Hodge v. The Queen'', where it was stated that "subjects which in one aspect and for one purpose fall within s. 92, may in another aspect and for another purpose fall within s. 91". Matters of double aspect The Courts have established several matters that ar ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Mandamus
(; ) is a judicial remedy in the form of an order from a court to any government, subordinate court, corporation, or public authority, to do (or forbear from doing) some specific act which that body is obliged under law to do (or refrain from doing), and which is in the nature of public duty, and in certain cases one of a statutory duty. It cannot be issued to compel an authority to do something against statutory provision. For example, it cannot be used to force a lower court to take a specific action on applications that have been made, but if the court refuses to rule one way or the other then a mandamus can be used to order the court to rule on the applications. Mandamus may be a command to do an administrative action or not to take a particular action, and it is supplemented by legal rights. In the American legal system it must be a judicially enforceable and legally protected right before one suffering a grievance can ask for a mandamus. A person can be said to be aggrie ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Section Twenty-four Of The Canadian Charter Of Rights And Freedoms
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.Dyck, Rand. ''Canadian Politics: Critical Approaches.'' Third ed. (Scarborough, Ontario: Nelson Thomson Learning, 2000), p. 442. Text Under the heading "Enforcement," the section states: Remedies Subsection 24(1) must be distinguished from subsection 52(1) of the ''Constitution Act, 1982''. Whereas section 52 allows the courts to invalidate laws or parts of laws for breaches of the constitution (including the ''Charter''), section 24 has broader capabilities (hindered only by the "appropriate and just" requirement) and can only be in ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Principles Of Fundamental Justice
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 (e.g., the rule against unclear or vague laws). The degree of protection dictated by these standards and procedural rights vary in accordance with the precise context, involving a contextual analysis of the affected person's interests. In other words, the more a person's rights or interests are adversely affected, the more procedural or substantive protections must be afforded to ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Beverly McLachlin
Beverley Marian McLachlin (born September 7, 1943) is a Canadian jurist and author who served as the 17th chief justice of Canada from 2000 to 2017. She is the longest-serving chief justice in Canadian history and the first woman to hold the position. In July 2018, McLachlin began a three-year term as a non-permanent judge on the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal, the first Canadian jurist nominated to the post. She was re-appointed for a second three-year term in 2021. Early life and education McLachlin was born Beverley Gietz in Pincher Creek, Alberta, the eldest child of Eleanora Marian (née Kruschell) and Ernest Gietz. Her parents, who were of German descent, were "fundamentalist Christians" of the Pentecostal Church. She received a B.A. and an M.A. in philosophy as well as an LL.B. degree (winning the gold medal as top student, and serving as notes editor of the ''Alberta Law Review'') from the University of Alberta. She was called to the bar of Alberta in 1969, and to th ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Bright Line
A bright-line rule (or bright-line test) is a clearly defined rule or standard, composed of objective factors, which leaves little or no room for varying interpretation. The purpose of a bright-line rule is to produce predictable and consistent results in its application. The term "bright-line" in this sense generally occurs in a legal context. Bright-line rules are usually standards established by courts in legal precedent or by legislatures in statutory provisions. The US Supreme Court often contrasts bright-line rules with their opposite: balancing tests (or "fine line testing"), where a result depends on weighing several factors—which could lead to inconsistent application of law or reduce objectivity. Debate in the US In the United States, there is much scholarly legal debate between those favoring bright-line rules and those favoring balancing tests. While some legal scholars, such as former Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, have expressed a strong preference for ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
No-go Area
A "no-go area" or "no-go zone" is a neighborhood or other geographic area where some or all outsiders are either physically prevented from entering or can enter at risk. The term includes exclusion zones, which are areas that are officially kept off-limits by the government, such as border zones and military exclusion zones. It also includes areas held by violent non-state actors, such as paramilitary, organized crime and terrorist organizations. In some cases, these areas have been held by insurgent organizations attempting to topple the government, such as Free Derry, an area in Northern Ireland that was held by the Irish Republican Army from 1969 to 1972. In other cases, the areas simply coexist alongside the state; an example is Kowloon Walled City, an area in Hong Kong essentially ruled by triad organizations from the 1950s to the 1970s. In the 21st century, the term has most often been used to refer to areas that police or medical workers consider too dangerous to enter wi ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Cooperative Federalism
Cooperative federalism, also known as marble-cake federalism, is defined as a flexible relationship between the federal and state governments in which both work together on a variety of issues and programs. In the United States In the American federal system, there are limitations on national government's ability to carry out its policies through the executive branch of state governments. For example, in '' Printz v. United States'', 521 U.S. 898 (1997) the Court held that the national government could not directly require state law enforcement officers to conduct background checks under the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act legislation. The court explained that prior decisions warned that "this Court never has sanctioned explicitly a federal command to the States to promulgate and enforce laws and regulations." And yet, there are significant advantages in a federal system to obtain state assistance in the local implementation of federal programs. Implementing such programs th ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Quebec (AG) V Canadian Owners And Pilots Assn
''Quebec (Attorney General) v. Canadian Owners and Pilots Association'', 2010 SCC 39, 0102 SCR 536, also referred to as ''Quebec v. COPA'', is a leading case of the Supreme Court of Canada on determining the applicability of the doctrines of interjurisdictional immunity and federal paramountcy in Canadian constitutional law. The facts An aerodrome, registered under the federal ''Aeronautics Act'', was constructed on land zoned as agricultural in the province of Quebec. Section 26 of the Quebec ''Act respecting the preservation of agricultural land and agricultural activities'' (“ARPALAA”) prohibited the use of lots in a designated agricultural region for any purpose other than agriculture, subject to prior authorization by the ''Commission de protection du territoire agricole du Québec''. Since the Commission’s permission was not obtained prior to constructing the aerodrome, the Commission ordered the return of the land to its original state pursuant to the ARPALAA. The ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Canadian Western Bank V Alberta
''Canadian Western Bank v Alberta'' 0072 S.C.R. 3 is a landmark decision in Canadian constitutional law by the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) relating to the division of powers between Federal and Provincial legislative bodies. Background In 2000, Alberta enacted changes to its ''Insurance Act'' purporting to make federally chartered banks subject to the provincial licensing scheme governing the promotion of insurance products. Upon the coming into force of that Act, Canadian Western Bank, together with other chartered banks, brought an application for a declaration: * that their promotion of certain insurance products authorized by the ''Bank Act'' was banking within the meaning of s. 91(15) of the ''Constitution Act, 1867'', and * that the ''Insurance Act'' and its associated regulations were constitutionally inapplicable to the banks' promotion of insurance by virtue of the doctrine of interjurisdictional immunity or, alternatively, inoperative by virtue of the doctrine o ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
R V Malmo-Levine; R V Caine
''R v Malmo-Levine; R v Caine'' 0033 S.C.R. 571, 2003 SCC 74, is a leading constitutional decision of the Supreme Court of Canada. The Court rejected a constitutional challenge of the criminalization of marijuana. Background The decision involves two cases. The first was where David Malmo-Levine, a "marijuana/freedom activist", ran an organization in East Vancouver called the "Harm Reduction Club", which attempts to reduce the harm associated with marijuana use by educating users and the public about the drug and provide the drug at cost. In December 1996 the police raided the Harm Reduction Club and seized 316 grams of marijuana charging Malmo-Levine with possession for the purpose of trafficking. The second case involved the 1993 arrest of Victor Caine for possession of marijuana. Caine was in his van by the ocean when two RCMP officers approached him. He was stopped and a 0.5 gram were found in his possession. Both Caine and Malmo-Levine challenged the constitutionality of ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
