|
List Of Supreme Court Of Canada Cases (Dickson Court)
This is a chronological list of notable cases decided by the Supreme Court of Canada The Supreme Court of Canada (SCC; french: Cour suprême du Canada, CSC) is the Supreme court, highest court in the Court system of Canada, judicial system of Canada. It comprises List of Justices of the Supreme Court of Canada, nine justices, wh ... from Brian Dickson's appointment as Chief Justice on April 18, 1984, to his retirement on June 30, 1990. 1984 19851989 1990 See also * List of notable Canadian Courts of Appeals cases {{Supreme Court of Canada (1984-1990) ... [...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 fro ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
R V Oakes
''R v Oakes'' 9861 SCR 103 is a case decided by the Supreme Court of Canada which established the famous ''Oakes'' test, an analysis of the limitations clause (section 1) of the ''Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms'' that allows reasonable limitations on rights and freedoms through legislation if the limitation is motivated by a "pressing and substantial objective" and can be "demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society."''R v Oakes'' 9861 SCR 103, 1986 CanLII 46 aparas 69–70 Background Oakes made a Charter challenge, claiming that the reverse onus created by the presumption of possession for purposes of trafficking violated the presumption of innocence guarantee under section 11(d) of the Charter. The issues before the Court were whether section 8 of the Narcotic Control Act The ''Narcotic Control Act'' (the ''Act''), passed in 1961, was one of Canada's national drug control statutes prior to its repeal by the 1996 ''Controlled Drugs and Subs ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Kosmopoulos V Constitution Insurance Co Of Canada
''Kosmopoulos v Constitution Insurance Co of Canada'' is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on the court's ability to pierce the corporate veil—to impose an interest or liability, that is, upon the shareholders of a company instead of the company itself. It was held that the veil can only be lifted where it would be "just and equitable", specifically to third parties. The case is also a leading source of insurance law. The insurer refused to indemnify Mr. Kosmopoulos on the grounds that the corporation owned the property, even though he was the sole-shareholder of the corporation. The insurer's position was consistent with the 1925 decision of the House of Lords in ''Macaura v Northern Assurance Co Ltd''. Although the SCC rejected the plaintiffs corporate veil argument, and his bailee argument, the court did not uphold the ''Macaura'' rule. The ratio of this case is that an insured may recover an indemnity so long as they meet the factual expectancy test, regardless of whe ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
R V Edwards Books And Art Ltd
''R v Edwards Books and Art Ltd'' 9862 SCR 713 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on the constitutional validity of an Ontario provincial Sunday closing law. The Court found that the legislation was within the power of the province to legislate but it was in violation of the right to freedom of religion under section 2(a) of the ''Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms'' ("''Charter''"). However, it could be saved under section 1. Three issues were before the Court: # Whether the Act was within the legislative powers of the province provided by section 92 of the ''Constitution Act, 1867'' # Whether any part of the Act violated sections 2(a), 7, or 15 of the ''Charter'' # Whether any violation could be saved under section 1 The Court found that the law was within the power of the province, that it violated section 2(a), but could be saved under section 1. They dismissed the appeals of Edwards, Longo and Magder, and allowed the Crown's appeal of the Nortown decision, e ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Retail, Wholesale And Department Store Union, Local 580 V Dolphin Delivery Ltd
''Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, Local 580 v Dolphin Delivery Ltd'', 9862 S.C.R. 573, is the seminal ''Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms'' decision that states that the Charter applies to governmental action, and to the common law except where matters are solely between private parties. Nevertheless, judges should interpret the common law in the light of the Charter. Background The Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union applied to the court to have Dolphin Delivery and Supercourier declared allies of Purolator, an employer of union members. This would have allowed the union to picket Dolphin while its employees would not have to cross the picket line. The BC Labour Board declined to hear an application since the dispute was governed under the Canada Labour Code, as ''Purolator'' was an interprovincial company. Dolphin obtained an injunction against secondary picketing on their premises on the basis that the common law does not permit secondary pick ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
E (Mrs) V Eve
''E (Mrs) v Eve'', 9862 S.C.R. 388 is a judgment by the Supreme Court of Canada regarding a mother's request for the consent of the court to have her disabled daughter sterilized. This was a landmark case which is influential in Canadian legal decisions involving proxy-consented, non-therapeutic medical procedures performed on people of diminished mental capacity. Background Case Eve was a 24-year-old woman suffering from "extreme expressive aphasia" and was at least "mildly to moderately developmentally delayed" with learning skills at a limited level. _She_spent_the_week_at_a_school_for_adults_with_mental_disabilities,_and_went_back_to_her_mother's_home_on_the_weekends.__Administrators_at_Eve's_care_facility_noticed_that_she_was_developing_a_close_relationship_with_a_male_resident,_also_disabled,_and_became_concerned.__Mrs._E,_also,_was_concerned_that_Eve_might_innocently_become_pregnant.__Her_disability_prevented_her_from_understanding_the_concept_of_marriage_or_the_"consequen ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
R V Jones
Reginald Victor Jones , FRSE, LLD (29 September 1911 – 17 December 1997) was a British physicist and scientific military intelligence expert who played an important role in the defence of Britain in by solving scientific and technical problems, and by the extensive use of deception throughout the war to confuse the Germans. Early life Reginald Jones was born in Herne Hill, south London, on 29 September 1911. He was educated at Alleyn's School, Dulwich, and Wadham College, Oxford, where he studied Natural Sciences. In 1932 he graduated with First Class honours in physics and then, working in the Clarendon Laboratory, completed his DPhil in 1934. Subsequently, he took up a Skynner Senior Studentship in Astronomy at Balliol College, Oxford. Assistant Director of Intelligence (Science) In 1936 Jones took up the post at the Royal Aircraft Establishment, Farnborough, a part of the Air Ministry. Here he worked on the problems associated with defending Britain from an air attac ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
R V Mannion
R, or r, is the eighteenth letter of the Latin alphabet, used in the modern English alphabet, the alphabets of other western European languages and others worldwide. Its name in English is ''ar'' (pronounced ), plural ''ars'', or in Ireland ''or'' . The letter is the eighth most common letter in English and the fourth-most common consonant (after , , and ). The letter is used to form the ending "-re", which is used in certain words such as ''centre'' in some varieties of English spelling, such as British English. Canadian English also uses the "-re" ending, unlike American English, where the ending is usually replaced by "-er" (''center''). This does not affect pronunciation. Name The name of the letter in Latin was (), following the pattern of other letters representing continuants, such as F, L, M, N and S. This name is preserved in French and many other languages. In Middle English, the name of the letter changed from to , following a pattern exhibited in many ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Scowby V Glendinning
''Scowby v Glendinning'', 9862 S.C.R. 226 is a leading federalism decision of the Supreme Court of Canada. The Saskatchewan provincial Human Rights Act was found not to apply to potentially discriminatory conduct that was acted as part of criminal law enforcement. Background Frederick Runns and a number of his friends were arrested by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in his hunting cabin for the assault of a conservation officer. The suspects were made to lay on the ground without being dressed in sub-zero temperature for approximately half an hour. They were eventually released. Runns and his associates made a complaint to the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission for arbitrary arrest. A Board of Inquiry was established to investigate the matter. The issue was whether the provincial Board of Inquiry had jurisdiction to investigate into the conduct of the officers. The issues on appeal to the Supreme Court were: # whether section 7 the Saskatchewan Human Rights Code, which allows ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Central Trust Co V Rafuse
''Central Trust Co v Rafuse'', 9862 SCR 147 is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on liability of solicitors in negligence and breach of contract as well as the doctrine of discoverability under the statute of limitations. Background Jack Rafuse and Franklyn Cordon were solicitors who had been hired by a company, which had purchased the shares of Stonehouse Motel and Restaurant Ltd. The agreement of sale required the purchasers to take out a mortgage on the property and to use the assets used as part of the purchase price of the shares. The solicitors had been retained to complete the mortgage transaction. Eight years later, the creditor for the mortgage, Central Trust Co., initiated a foreclosure of the mortgage. The creditor, Irving Oil Ltd., tried to prevent the foreclosure by claiming that the mortgage was invalid. The case went to the Supreme Court of Canada. In its decision ''Central and Eastern Trust Co v Irving Oil Ltd'',9802 SCR 29. the mortgage was invalida ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Beauregard V Canada
''Beauregard v Canada'' 9862 S.C.R. 56 was a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada on judicial independence. Notably, the Court found that judicial independence is based partly in an unwritten constitution, and that some institutional independence is needed so that judges can guard the Constitution of Canada. These findings were repeated, with far-reaching consequences, in the ''Provincial Judges Reference'' (1997). Background The case concerned section 100 of the ''Constitution Act, 1867''. As part of a guarantee of judicial independence for federally appointed judges, the section provides that "The Salaries, Allowances, and Pensions of the Judges of the Superior, District, and County Courts (except the Courts of Probate in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick), and of the Admiralty Courts in Cases where the Judges thereof are for the Time being paid by Salary, shall be fixed and provided by the Parliament of Canada." A salary fixed by the Parliament of Canada was preferable to a sa ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Mills V R
''Mills v R'', 9861 S.C.R. 863 is a leading constitutional decision of the Supreme Court of Canada concerning the right to a trial within a reasonable time under section 11(b) of the ''Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms'' and the meaning of a "court of competent jurisdiction" under section 24(1) of the ''Charter''. The Court held that a thirty-one month delay was not unreasonable in the circumstances and that preliminary hearing judges are not within jurisdiction, superior courts can sometimes be within jurisdiction, and criminal trial courts were always within jurisdiction. Background For a period starting in 1973 James Mills was arrested and charged several times for robbery. In 1979 he was arrested in Nova Scotia with several outstanding charges. He was moved to London, Ontario to deal with some past charges. He did not appear in court until September 1981. There were a number of requests for adjournment. Eventually, the ''Charter'' came into force in April 1982. In May Mi ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
