|
List Of Supreme Court Of Canada Cases (Lamer Court)
This is a chronological list of notable cases decided by the Supreme Court of Canada from appointment of Antonio Lamer as Chief Justice of Canada to his retirement. 19901994 19951999 See also * 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 (1990-2000) ... [...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] |
McKinney V University Of Guelph
''McKinney v University of Guelph'' 9903 SCR 229 is the Supreme Court of Canada case that decided that, for the purpose of determining the application of the ''Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms'', universities were not part of government. Therefore, the mandatory retirement age for university teachers did not violate equality rights under section 15 of the ''Charter''. In reaching this holding, the Court refined the scope of the ''Charter'' as it applies to government bodies as well as the definition of "law" within the ambit of the ''Charter''. Background Three year prior to ''McKinney'', the Court held in ''Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, Local 580 v Dolphin Delivery Ltd'' that the ''Charter'' only applied to the government but without defining what constitutes "government". Eight professors and one librarian from the University of Guelph applied for declarations that the university's policy for mandatory retirement at age 65 as well as the Ontario '' Human ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
R V Swain
''R v Swain'', 9911 S.C.R. 933 is a leading constitutional decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on certain rights of the mentally ill in their criminal defence. The case concerned a constitutional challenge of the common law rule permitting the Crown to adduce evidence of an accused's insanity and section 542(2) of the ''Criminal Code'', which allowed for the indeterminate detention of an accused who is found not guilty by reason of "insanity". The Court held that both the common law rule and the Code provision were unconstitutional. As a result, the Court created a new common law rule that was constitutional, and Parliament created new laws of what to do with individuals who were found not criminally responsible by reason of a mental disorder. The parties to the case were the appellant, Swain, the respondent, the Crown, and the following interveners: the Attorney General of Canada, the Lieutenant Governor's Board of Review of Ontario, the Canadian Disability Rights Council, t ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
R V Evans
''R v Evans and McDonald'' was the prosecution of two footballers, Ched Evans and Clayton McDonald, who were accused of the rape of a woman. On 20 April 2012, Evans was convicted and sentenced to five years imprisonment. McDonald was acquitted. Several people were later fined after naming the woman on Twitter and other social media websites. Evans served years in prison, being paroled on the Early Release Scheme. After this, his conviction was overturned on appeal in favour of a retrial. The appeal became a reported case by at least three sets of Law Reports as it confirmed only similar non-hearsay testimony of historic sexual encounters by a third party with a complainant, which is so similar that similarity cannot be reasonably explained by coincidence, can be admitted by the presiding judge, heard or written (adduced) in evidence and then considered by a jury. Such witnesses came forward who testified, with supporting evidence, to that effect. At retrial the jury found Evans n ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
R V W(D)
''R v W (D)'', 9911 S.C.R. 742 is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on assessing guilt based on the credibility of witnesses in a criminal trial. More specifically, W.D. examines sexual assault cases and burdens of proof in evidence law. Background DW, a 42-year-old man, was charged with sexually assaulting a 16-year-old girl, TW, on two occasions while driving her to her boyfriend's house. TW was staying at DW's house at the time. Besides her claim of the event, there was little circumstantial evidence. Her panties had semen stains from a Type A secretor, which included DW, but also 32% of the population. The secretor type of the boyfriend was never known. At trial before a judge and jury the defence argued that she was not credible. She was unemployed, illiterate, and a dropout, and had been kicked out of several houses including Dw's house. The testimony of DW was poor, but it is uncertain whether it was due to lack of intelligence or deception. At the end of ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
R V Sullivan
''R v Sullivan'' 984AC 156 is a British House of Lords case in criminal law, and a leading modern authority on the common law defence of insanity. Facts The defendant, who had had epilepsy since childhood, kicked the victim, his friend, during an epileptic seizure while he was sitting in his neighbour's flat on 8 May 1981. Upon recovery, the defendant only remembered the incident where he was standing by a window with the victim lying on the floor with head injuries. The defendant was charged with assault. The trial judge ruled that the evidence that the defendant had had a post-epileptic seizure would amount to a disease of the mind, not that of automatism. Judgment The House of Lords held that epilepsy was a disease of the mind due to the defendant's impaired mental faculties causing defect in reasoning. Lord Diplock stated that {{blockquote, "The evidence as to the pathology of a seizure due to psychomotor epilepsy can be sufficiently stated for the purposes of this appe ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Committee For The Commonwealth Of Canada V Canada
A committee or commission is a body of one or more persons subordinate to a deliberative assembly. A committee is not itself considered to be a form of assembly. Usually, the assembly sends matters into a committee as a way to explore them more fully than would be possible if the assembly itself were considering them. Committees may have different functions and their types of work differ depending on the type of the organization and its needs. A member of a legislature may be delegated a committee assignment, which gives them the right to serve on a certain committee. Purpose A deliberative assembly may form a committee (or "commission") consisting of one or more persons to assist with the work of the assembly. For larger organizations, much work is done in committees. Committees can be a way to formally draw together people of relevant expertise from different parts of an organization who otherwise would not have a good way to share information and coordinate actions. They may ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Mental Disorder (Insanity) Defense
The insanity defense, also known as the mental disorder defense, is an affirmative defense by excuse in a criminal case, arguing that the defendant is not responsible for their actions due to an episodic psychiatric disease at the time of the criminal act. This is contrasted with an excuse of provocation, in which the defendant is responsible, but the responsibility is lessened due to a temporary mental state.''Criminal Law - Cases and Materials'', 7th ed. 2012, Wolters Kluwer Law & Business; John Kaplan, Robert Weisberg, Guyora Binder, , It is also contrasted with a finding that a defendant cannot stand trial in a criminal case because a mental disease prevents them from effectively assisting counsel, from a civil finding in trusts and estates where a will is nullified because it was made when a mental disorder prevented a testator from recognizing the natural objects of their bounty, and from involuntary civil commitment to a mental institution, when anyone is found to be g ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
R V Chaulk
''R v Chaulk'', [1990] 3 SCR 1303 is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the interpretation and constitutionality of section 16(4) of the ''Criminal Code (Canada), Criminal Code'', which provides for a Mental Disorder (Insanity) Defense#Canadian law, mental disorder defence. Two accused individuals challenged the section as a violation of their right to the presumption of innocence under Section Eleven of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 11(d) of the ''Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Charter of Rights and Freedoms'' ("''Charter''"). The Court upheld the section and provided a basis on which to interpret the section. Background On September 3, 1985, 15-year-old Robert Chaulk and 16-year-old Francis Morrissette burglarized a home in Winnipeg, and then stabbed and bludgeoned its sole occupant to death. One week later, they turned themselves in, making full confessions. The only defense (legal), defence raised was insanity within the meaning ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Conflict Of Laws
Conflict of laws (also called private international law) is the set of rules or laws a jurisdiction applies to a case, transaction, or other occurrence that has connections to more than one jurisdiction. This body of law deals with three broad topics: ''jurisdiction'', rules regarding when it is appropriate for a court to hear such a case; ''foreign judgments'', dealing with the rules by which a court in one jurisdiction mandates compliance with a ruling of a court in another jurisdiction; and ''choice of law'', which addresses the question of which substantive laws will be applied in such a case. These issues can arise in any private-law context, but they are especially prevalent in contract law and tort law. Scope and terminology The term ''conflict of laws'' is primarily used in the United States and Canada, though it has also come into use in the United Kingdom. Elsewhere, the term ''private international law'' is commonly used. Some scholars from countries that use ''con ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Morguard Investments Ltd V De Savoye
''Morguard Investments Ltd v De Savoye'', 9903 SCR 1077 is the leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the enforcement of extraprovincial judgments. The Court held that the standard for enforcing a default judgment from a different province is not the same as if it were from another country; rather the Court adopts the test from ''Indyka v Indyka'', 9691 AC 33 ( HL) and ''Moran v Pyle National (Canada) Ltd'', 9751 SCR 393 where there must be a "real and substantial connection" between the petitioner and the country or territory exercising jurisdiction. Background De Savoye, the appellant, was the mortgagor of a property in Alberta and resided in British Columbia. The mortgage defaulted and the respondents brought action in Alberta, for the land they had mortgaged in that same province. The appellant chose not to appear or defend his actions. The respondents obtained judgment ''ex juris'' in the foreclosure action, and then obtained orders for the judicial sale of the pr ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
R V Andrews
''R v Andrews'', 9903 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. Background Donald Andrews was the leader of a white supremacist political group known as the Nationalist Party of Canada and Robert Smith was the party secretary. Together they were in charge of the party's bi-monthly magazine called the National Reporter which made claims against the Jewish and black peoples. Both Andrews and Smith were charged with "unlawfully communicating statements, other than in private conversation, which willfully promoted hatred against an identifiable group" contrary to s. 319(2) of the Criminal Code. At trial they were found guilty for promoting hatred. On appeal to the Court of Appeal for Ontario Justice Cory found that sec ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
