|
List Of Supreme Court Of Canada Cases (Laskin Court)
This is a chronological list of notable cases decided by the Supreme Court of Canada from the appointment of Bora Laskin in 1973 as Chief Justice to his death in office in 1984. Laskin was the first Chief Justice to hear cases under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms implemented in 1982. 19731974 19751979 19801984 See also * List of Judicial Committee of the Privy Council cases * List of notable Canadian Courts of Appeals cases A select number of decisions from the Courts of Appeal have proven to be the leading case law in a number of fields and have subsequently been adopted across all provinces, or else they are famous decisions in their own right. Most frequently the ... {{Supreme Court of Canada (1973-1984) ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
List Of Supreme Court Of Canada Cases
The Supreme Court of Canada is the court of last resort and final appeal in Canada. Cases that are successfully appealed to the Court are generally of national importance. Once a case is decided the Court will publish written reasons for the decision that consist of one or more reasons from any number of the nine justices. Understanding the background of the cases, their reasons and the authorship can be important and insightful as each judge may have varying beliefs in legal theory and understanding. List of cases by Court era * List of Supreme Court of Canada cases (Richards Court through Fauteux Court): This list includes cases from the formation of the Court on April 8, 1875, through to the retirement of Gérald Fauteux on December 23, 1973. * List of Supreme Court of Canada cases (Laskin Court): This list includes cases from the rise of Bora Laskin through to his death on March 26, 1984. * List of Supreme Court of Canada cases (Dickson Court): This list includes cases from ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Peace, Order And Good Government
In many Commonwealth jurisdictions, the phrase "peace, order, and good government" (POGG) is an expression used in law to express the legitimate objects of legislative powers conferred by statute. The phrase appears in many Imperial Acts of Parliament and Letters Patent, most notably the constitutions of Barbados, Canada, Australia and formerly New Zealand and South Africa. It is often contrasted with "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", a spiritually analogous phrase found in the US Declaration of Independence. Background Legal documents often contain a residual clause which expresses which entity will have authority over jurisdictions that have not otherwise been delineated or are in dispute. While specific authorities are often enumerated in legal documents as well, the designation of a residual power helps provide direction to future decision-makers and in emerging issue areas. At its origin, the preferred phrase was "peace, ''welfare'' and good government," but ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
R V Sault Ste-Marie (City Of)
''R v Sault Ste-Marie (City of)'' 9782 SCR 1299 is a Supreme Court of Canada case where the Court defines the three types of offences that exist in Canadian criminal law and further defines the justification for "public welfare" offences. Background The city of Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, hired Cherokee Disposal to dispose of the city's waste. The city built a disposal site 20 feet from a stream which, when filled by the disposal company, resulted in waste seeping into the stream. The city was charged with discharging, or permitting to be discharged, refuse into the public waterways causing pollution pursuant to section 32(1) of the Ontario ''Water Resources Act''. The issue before the court was whether the city's offence should be classified as strict liability or absolute liability. The Court of Appeal for Ontario held that the charge required proof of ''mens rea'', which on the facts would acquit the defendant. Reasoning In the judgement written by Justice Dickson, the Cour ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Canada (AG) V Montreal (City Of)
''Canada (AG) v Montreal (City of)'', 9782 S.C.R. 770 (also known as ''Dupond'') is a constitutional decision of the Supreme Court of Canada. The Court upheld a municipal law that regulated the traffic by repressing disorderly conduct during public parades under the provincial constitutional authority to create laws of a "local nature" in section 92(16) of the Constitution Act, 1867. The law was challenged as ultra vires the constitution as the law was claimed to be of a criminal law nature, a power exclusive to the federal government under section 91(27) of the Constitution Act, 1867, by preserving the peace and punishing disorderly conduct. However, City of Montreal cited '' Hodge v. The Queen'', claiming that it allowed for a municipality to preserve peace and repress disorderly conduct in the context of a valid provincial program. The Court agreed with the City and held in their favour. The Court held that the law was not criminal in nature as it was preventative and not punit ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Nova Scotia (Board Of Censors) V McNeil
''Nova Scotia (Board of Censors) v McNeil'', 9782 S.C.R. 662 is a famous pre-Charter decision from the Supreme Court of Canada on freedom of expression and the criminal law power under the Constitution Act, 1867. The film censorship laws of the province of Nova Scotia were challenged on the basis that it constituted criminal law which could only be legislated by the federal government. The Court held that though the censorship laws had a moral dimension to it, the laws did not have any prohibition or penalty required in a criminal law. Background The Amusement Regulation Board of Nova Scotia, created under the ''Theatre and Amusement Act'', banned the film ''Last Tango in Paris'' from being shown in the province. McNeil, a journalist, attempted to challenge the law on the basis that it was a constitutionally invalid law. The issue before the Supreme Court was whether the regulation of morality alone constitutes a criminal law. In a five to four decision the Court held that the law ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Arnold V Teno
''Arnold v Teno'', 9782 SCR 287 is a leading tort case from the Supreme Court of Canada. This decision was part of a trilogy of personal injury cases including ''Andrews v Grand & Toy Alberta Ltd'' (1978) and ''Thornton v Prince George School Board'' (1978). Teno v Arnold (1974) On July 1, 1969, four-year-old Diane Teno and her six-year-old brother were crossing the street to get some ice cream from the ice cream truck parked on the other side when she was struck by a car driven by Brian Arnold. Teno was rendered severely brain damaged and in 1974, sued Arnold for damages. At trial Teno was successful and was awarded damages. Arnold v Teno (1978) In 1978, Arnold appealed the amount awarded. The issue before the Court was whether the amount of award for damages was correct. The Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the original damage award. Justice Spence, writing for the majority, observed that the purpose of the award in these circumstances is to ensure that Teno is properly ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Quebec (AG) V Kellogg's Co Of Canada
''Quebec (AG) v Kellogg's Co of Canada'' is a leading constitutional decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the pre-Charter right to freedom of expression. The Quebec ''Consumer Protection Act'', which prohibited advertising to children through cartoons, was challenged by the Kellogg Company on the basis that it affected TV stations across the country. The Court held that the regulation of advertising is a matter within the authority of the province, and that the Act was valid law under the Property and Civil Rights power allocated to the province under section 92(13) of the Constitution Act, 1867. Reasons of the court Justice Martland found that the pith and substance of the legislation was the regulation of advertising which he identified as a matter allocated to the provincial government under the property and civil rights power. He noted that the regulation of advertising and was also part of a larger provincial scheme of regulating business practices, all of which fell with ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Capital Cities Communications Inc V Canadian Radio-Television Commission
''Capital Cities Communications v. CRTC'' (1977), 9782 S.C.R. 141 is a Supreme Court of Canada decision on the legislative jurisdiction of cable television. Chief Justice Laskin, writing for the majority of the Court, held that all television, even where exclusively produced and distributed within the province, fell within the definition of a federal undertaking under section 92(10)(a) of the ''Constitution Act, 1867''. Rogers Cable provided a subscription service for American television programs. The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (at the time of the decision recently renamed from the Canadian Radio-Television Commission, in both cases abbreviated CRTC), a federal regulatory agency, required television broadcasters such as Rogers to remove the commercials from American television feeds and replace them with Canadian ads (simultaneous substitution). Capital Cities Communications at the time owned WKBW-TV, a station based in Buffalo, New York that had a ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Smithers V R
''R. v. Smithers'', 9781 S.C.R. 506 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on determining criminal causation in an offence of manslaughter. The Court held that the Crown must show that the accused's acts were a "contributing cause of death outside of the ''de minimis'' range." In practice, this test applied to all criminal offences requiring proof of causation. Background On February 18, 1973, Smithers, a black teen, played in a hockey game against a team including Barrie Cobby, a white teen, in a Mississauga rink. During the game, Smithers was subject to numerous racial slurs by Cobby. Evidence given by numerous witnesses at the trial indicated both had a dislike for each other's behaviour and Cobby had often been using racial slurs toward Smithers. During their final game, Cobby was given a penalty for spearing Smithers during the game while Cobby was in the penalty box Smithers scored a goal and laughed in Cobby's direction. Cobby shouted further racial slurs and Smithers t ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Kruger V R
''Kruger v R'', 9781 S.C.R. 104, was a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada on the relationship between the ''Indian Act'' and provincial game laws. The ''Indian Act'' is a federal law enacted under the British North America Act, 1867, which gives jurisdiction over Aboriginals to the federal government. The Court found that the ''Indian Acts statement that provincial laws may apply to Aboriginal peoples in Canada as long as they apply to other people protects laws even if these laws affect Aboriginals more than others. Background Jacob Kruger and Robert Manuel were Penticton First Nations people in British Columbia who killed deer outside hunting season. This was the land on which their tribe usually hunted, and it now belonged to the Crown. Since the hunting violated the provincial Wildlife Act, they were charged, but they appealed citing their Aboriginal rights under the Royal Proclamation, 1763. The British Columbia Court of Appeal upheld the convictions, pointing to secti ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
R V Leary
''R v Leary'', 9781 S.C.R. 29, is the leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on the use of intoxication as an excuse to criminal liability which created what is known as the "Leary rule". The Court held that when the accused was found to be sufficiently intoxicated at the time of the offence to be unable to form the "minimal mental element" required for a general intent offence, they may still be held liable as the act of inducing intoxication can be substituted for the requirement of ''mens rea''. Aftermath The "leary rule" was later challenged in the case of ''R v Daviault'', where an exception to the rule was made for when the accused was so intoxicated he was in a state akin to automatism. See also * List of Supreme Court of Canada cases The Supreme Court of Canada is the court of last resort and final appeal in Canada. Cases that are successfully appealed to the Court are generally of national importance. Once a case is decided the Court will publish written reasons for t ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |