|
List Of Supreme Court Of Canada Cases (McLachlin Court)
This is a chronological list of notable cases decided by the Supreme Court of Canada from the appointment of Beverley McLachlin as Chief Justice of Canada to her retirement in 2017. 2000–2004 2005–2009 2010–2017 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 (2000-present) ... [...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] |
R V Sharpe
''R v Sharpe'', 2001 SCC 2 is a constitutional rights decision of the Supreme Court of Canada. The court balanced the societal interest to regulate child pornography against the right to freedom of expression possessed by the defendants under section 2 of the ''Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms;'' holding, that while general prohibition of child pornography was constitutional, there were some limits imposed by the ''Charter''. The decision overturned a ruling by the British Columbia Court of Appeal. Background After police seized 517 photographs mostly of young boys, as well as sexually explicit stories; John Robin Sharpe was charged on two counts of possession of child pornography, and on another two counts of possession with intent to distribute. Sharpe argued that the relevant provision of the criminal code placed an unreasonable limitation on his freedom of expression, and in a ruling the British Columbia Court of Appeal concurred; Justice Duncan Shaw ruled that the la ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Torts
A tort is a civil wrong that causes a claimant to suffer loss or harm, resulting in legal liability for the person who commits the tortious act. Tort law can be contrasted with criminal law, which deals with criminal wrongs that are punishable by the state. While criminal law aims to punish individuals who commit crimes, tort law aims to compensate individuals who suffer harm as a result of the actions of others. Some wrongful acts, such as assault and battery, can result in both a civil lawsuit and a criminal prosecution in countries where the civil and criminal legal systems are separate. Tort law may also be contrasted with contract law, which provides civil remedies after breach of a duty that arises from a contract. Obligations in both tort and criminal law are more fundamental and are imposed regardless of whether the parties have a contract. While tort law in civil law jurisdictions largely derives from Roman law, common law jurisdictions derive their tort law from cust ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Duty Of Care
In tort law, a duty of care is a legal obligation that is imposed on an individual, requiring adherence to a standard of reasonable care while performing any acts that could foreseeably harm others. It is the first element that must be established to proceed with an action in negligence. The claimant must be able to show a duty of care imposed by law that the defendant has breached. In turn, breaching a duty may subject an individual to liability. The duty of care may be imposed ''by operation of law'' between individuals who have no ''current'' direct relationship (familial or contractual or otherwise) but eventually become related in some manner, as defined by common law (meaning case law). Duty of care may be considered a formalisation of the social contract, the implicit responsibilities held by individuals towards others within society. It is not a requirement that a duty of care be defined by law, though it will often develop through the jurisprudence of common law. Deve ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Cooper V Hobart
''Cooper v Hobart'', 2001 SCC 79 is a Supreme Court of Canada case that redefined the " ''Anns'' test", which was adopted in '' Kamloops (City of) v Nielsen'' to establish a duty of care in civil tort cases. Background Eron was a mortgage broker under the ''Mortgage Broker's Act''. Cooper had advanced money to Eron. Eron's mortgage license was suspended by Hobart acting in his official capacity as Mortgage Broker Registrar under the Act. Cooper alleged that Hobart breached a duty of care that he allegedly owed to her and other investors because he had been aware of the serious violations of the Act committed by Eron, and not suspended its license soon enough. The Registrar of Mortgage Brokers had become aware of Eron in August 1996 and did not suspend his licence until October 1997. At trial, the Registrar was found to have owed a duty of care to the investors. In appeal, the Court overturned the verdict on grounds that there was no sufficient proximity. Reasoning of the Court ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
R V Nette
''R v Nette'', 2001 SCC 78 is a Supreme Court of Canada decision on the standard for causation in criminal offences. The Court upheld the " ''Smithers'' test" for causation in a criminal charge for manslaughter or murder, but held the test for causation for second degree murder need not be expressed as "a contributing cause of death, outside the de minimis range". Instead, it would be preferable to use positive terms such as "significant contributing cause". In the case of first degree murder under section 231(5) of the ''Criminal Code'' (the offence of domination), a jury must also consider the additional ''R v Harbottle'' "a substantial causation" standard, but only after finding the accused guilty of murder. Background A 95-year-old widow was robbed and left hog tied in her room. Over a period of 48 hours, she suffocated to death. During an undercover investigation, a suspect, Daniel Nette, had admitted to an undercover officer that he had robbed and killed the widow. Nette was a ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Paramountcy Doctrine
In Canadian constitutional law, the doctrine of paramountcy (french: prépondérance fédérale) establishes that where there is a conflict between valid provincial and federal laws, the federal law will prevail and the provincial law will be inoperative to the extent that it conflicts with the federal law. Unlike interjurisdictional immunity, which is concerned with the scope of the federal power, paramountcy deals with the way in which that power is exercised. The only exception to the doctrine is under section 94A of the ''Constitution Act, 1867'', which allows both the federal government and the provinces to make laws for old age pensions and supplementary benefits, but, to the extent of any conflict, the provincial law is paramount over the federal law. Nature of the doctrine Paramountcy is relevant where there is conflicting federal and provincial legislation. As Justice Major explained in ''Rothmans'': Claims in paramountcy may arise from two different forms of confl ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Law Society Of British Columbia V Mangat
''Law Society of British Columbia v Mangat'', 0013 S.C.R. 113 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision where the Court held that a non-lawyer may be given the power to practice law under a federal statute even if it is contrary to provincial legal profession legislation. Background The respondent M was an immigration consultant carrying on his work through an immigration consulting company ("Westcoast"). He had not studied law in Canada and was not a member of the B.C. Law Society. M and other Westcoast employees engaged in a number of activities involving immigration proceedings, including appearing as counsel or advocate on behalf of aliens, for or in the expectation of a fee from the persons for whom the acts were performed, before the Immigration and Refugee Board ("IRB"). The Law Society brought an application seeking a permanent injunction against M and Westcoast to prevent them from engaging in the ongoing practice of law, in contravention of B.C.’s ''Legal Profe ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
R V Pan; R V Sawyer
''R v Pan; R v Sawyer'', 0012 S.C.R. 344 is a Supreme Court of Canada decision on the criminal jury trial system. The Court held that rules against admitting evidence indicating the decision-making process of a jury were constitutional. Background The case was based on the facts of two separate trials. Pan case Rui Pan was arrested and charged with murdering his girlfriend. In the first trial the jury was unable to come to a decision and so it was held to be a mistrial. In the second trial the judge discovered that one of the jury members had followed the first trial in the media and had consulted a doctor about the evidence. He had shared this information with the other members of the jury. Pan brought an application for a stay of the proceedings based on the information about the jury and challenged the constitutionality of section 649 of the ''Criminal Code'' which prohibited the use of evidence regarding the deliberation of the jury. The trial judge denied the application. S ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Therrien (Re)
''Re Therrien'', 0012 S.C.R. 3, 2001 SCC 35, is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on judicial independence. Background In the 1970s, Richard Therrien was convicted of assisting four members of the Front de libération du Québec during the October Crisis. Once he was released he studied law and was eventually given a pardon. Years later he applied for a position on the Quebec bench as a judge. As part of his application he disclosed his criminal record and his pardon. He was rejected based on this history. Later he applied again, this time he did not reveal his criminal history and was accepted. Once the committee discovered the existence of a criminal history they got the Minister of Justice to issue a complaint to the Quebec Conseil de la magistrature. The Conseil found the complaint to be justified and recommended that he be removed from the bench. Therrien applied to have the decision of the Conseil to be judicially reviewed and challenged the constitutionality ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Mitchell V MNR
''Mitchell v MNR'', 0011 S.C.R. 911 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on aboriginal rights under section 35(1) of the ''Constitution Act, 1982''. The court held that Mitchell's claim to an aboriginal right to import goods across the Canada– US border was invalid as he was unable to present enough evidence showing that the importation was an integral part of the band's distinctive culture. In 1988, Grand Chief Michael Mitchell, a Mohawk of Akwesasne, attempted to bring goods from the US into Canada. At the border he declared everything that he had purchased in the US but refused to pay any duty on it, claiming that he had an aboriginal right to bring goods across the border. At trial, the Federal Court agreed with Mitchell and held that there was an aboriginal right to import goods. The decision was upheld by the Federal Court of Appeal. The Supreme Court overturned the decision, and held that Mitchell was required to pay duty for all of the goods he imported. Se ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Trinity Western University V British Columbia College Of Teachers
''Trinity Western University v British Columbia College of Teachers'', 0011 S.C.R. 772, 2001 SCC 31, is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on the freedom of religion and the court's ability to review a private school's policies. Background Trinity Western University is a private Christian university that sought to take full responsibility for an existing teacher education program jointly run by Trinity Western and Simon Fraser University. The school applied to the British Columbia College of Teachers for the proper certification. The College rejected Trinity Western's application on the grounds that the school's community standards policy, which applied to all students, faculty, and staff, prohibited "homosexual behaviour". The College argued that this policy was discriminatory and that it would not be in the public interest to approve the application. Opinion of the Court In an eight to one decision, the Court held that the College "acted unfairly" in rejecting Trinity W ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
