|
List Of Supreme Court Of Canada Cases (Richards Court Through Fauteux Court)
This is a chronological list of notable cases decided by the Supreme Court of Canada from the formation of the Court in 1875 to the retirement of Gérald Fauteux in 1973. Note that the Privy Council heard appeals for criminal cases until 1933 and for civil cases until 1949. Also between 1888 and 1926, no criminal appeals were allowed to the Privy Council. 1875–99 19001949 19501959 19601969 1970–73 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 (1867-1984) ... [...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] |
Home Oil Distributors Ltd V British Columbia (AG)
''Home Oil Distributors Ltd v British Columbia (AG)'' 940S.C.R. 444 was a leading constitutional decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the Trade and Commerce power under section 91(2) of the ''Constitution Act, 1867''. The Court struck down the federal Coal and Petroleum Products Control Board Act, which protected the provincial market from rising gas prices, as it did not sufficiently conform to the "inter-provincial branch" of the Trade and Commerce power. The Court found that where regulation over transactions that take place entirely within a province, even when the product has been imported, does not fall within the Trade and Commerce power and instead is a matter in the exclusive jurisdiction of the provincial government. See also * List of Supreme Court of Canada cases (Richards Court through Fauteux Court) This is a chronological list of notable cases decided by the Supreme Court of Canada from the formation of the Court in 1875 to the retirement of Gérald Fauteu ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Beaver V R
''Beaver v The Queen'' 957is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the mens rea requirement in criminal law to prove "possession". The Court held that an offence based on possession, such as possession of a narcotic, requires the Crown to prove that the accused had subjective knowledge of the nature of the object in possession. Background Louis Beaver and his brother Max Beaver were arrested selling heroin to an undercover RCMP officer and charged with possession and sale of an illegal narcotic under the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act. Max was the one in actual physical possession of the drug but Louis was charged by association as he knew Max had the heroin. In defence, Louis claimed that he thought the package was milk sugar and that they were only trying to defraud the RCMP officer. At trial, the judge instructed the jury by telling them that if they find that they were in possession their actual knowledge was irrelevant. The issue before the Supreme Court was whe ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Switzman V Elbling
''Switzman v Elbling and A.G. of Quebec'', 957SCR 285 is a Supreme Court of Canada decision in which the Court ruled that Quebec's Act to Protect the Province Against Communistic Propaganda, commonly known as the "Padlock Law", was ''ultra vires'' of the provincial legislature. The Court held that the Padlock Law was a statute respecting criminal law, which is the exclusive authority of the Parliament of Canada under the British North America Act, 1867. Rand, Kellock, and Abbott JJ further held that the law was ''ultra vires'' because it violated freedom of expression guaranteed under an implied bill of rights springing from the "democratic form of government established in Canada", but this view was not shared by the rest of the majority. History Max Bailey, was a resident of a Park Avenue apartment in Montreal. In February 1948, Bailey, a former Montreal City Councillor and a Communist himself, wanted to assign his apartment to John Switzman, a prominent Marxist who wanted to t ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Reference Re Farm Products Marketing Act (Ontario)
''Reference Re Farm Products Marketing Act (Ontario)'', 1957 S.C.R. 198 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on the Trade and Commerce power allocated to the federal government under section 91(2) of the Constitution Act, 1867. The Court held that the Trade and Commerce power applied not just to trade but also to the flow of goods. The Ontario ''Farm Products Marketing Act'' was challenged as ultra vires the province. The Court split four to four on whether the law was valid. Chief Justice Fauteux, held that the Act had an effect on inter-provincial trade and so it could not be upheld as a "matter of a local nature" under section 92 (16) of the Constitution Act, 1867. Rather, the Act concerned the "flow of goods" which was part of the Trade power. Rand J., in a concurring opinion, added that the demarcation between trade, production, and manufacturing must be considered. “That demarcation must observe this rule, that if in a trade activity, including manufacture or pro ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Henry Birks & Sons (Montreal) Ltd V Montreal (City Of)
''Henry Birks & Sons (Montreal) Ltd v Montreal (City of)'', 955S.C.R. 799 was an early constitutional decision of the Supreme Court of Canada where the Court struck down a provincial law permitting municipalities to pass by-laws for the closing of stores on certain Catholic feast days. Henry Birks and Sons, a chain of jewelry stores, objected to the lost business on holidays. The Court held that the law was a matter of public morals and therefore fell within the exclusive criminal law powers of the federal government and so was ultra vires the competence of the province. This case marked the first of a gradual shift in Canadian law away from non-secular laws. See also * List of Supreme Court of Canada cases (Richards Court through Fauteux Court) This is a chronological list of notable cases decided by the Supreme Court of Canada from the formation of the Court in 1875 to the retirement of Gérald Fauteux in 1973. Note that the Privy Council heard appeals for criminal cases unti ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Saumur V Quebec (City Of)
{{italic title, all=yes, noerror''Saumur v Quebec (City of)'' 9532 S.C.R. 299 is a famous constitutional decision of the Supreme Court of Canada which struck down a municipal by-law prohibiting the distribution of literature to the public. Laurier Saumur (6 Feb. 1921–22 Mar. 2007) was born and raised Catholic, but grew disillusioned as a youth and studied the teachings of the Jehovah's Witnesses. He was baptized as a Witness in 1944 and soon began to work as a door-to-door missionary for the Witnesses, first in Montreal and then in Quebec City. At the time, police harassment of Witnesses was widespread in Quebec, and Mr. Saumur had been arrested 103 times for distribution of Witness literature when he decided to challenge the legal basis for the arrests. A group of Jehovah's Witnesses, along with Saumur, challenged a Quebec City municipal by-law that prohibited the distribution of literature in the street without the proper authorization of the city's Chief of Police on the ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Azoulay V R
''Azoulay v R'', 9522 S.C.R. 495 was a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada on abortion in Canada. The court found that with evidence so complicated, a judge should summarize it to a jury. Background Dr. Leon Azoulay was accused of murder after one of his patients died. This woman, described by Justice James Wilfred Estey as "Mrs. P.", had allegedly received an abortion from Azoulay which wound up causing a fatal haemorrhage. An autopsy revealed evidence of an abortion. At trial, the judge spoke about the law under which Azoulay was charged, and told the jury that if they found Azoulay guilty, there must be evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. He also declined to summarize the facts of the case, saying that they "have been well elaborated by the Defence and the Crown." Azoulay was found guilty of manslaughter. Quebec's court of appeal upheld the conviction, albeit with the Chief Justice dissenting that the trial judge's discussion with the jury was inadequate. Decision The S ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Johannesson V West St Paul (Rural Municipality Of)
''Johannesson v West St Paul (Rural Municipality of)'' 9521 S.C.R. 297 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on the federal jurisdiction over aeronautics. This was also the first Supreme Court case to analyze the peace, order, and good government provision of the Constitution and was the beginning of its modern interpretation. Background Konnie Johannesson bought a plot of land near the Red River to build a landing strip. The neighbourhood brought an action against him to prevent him from building the strip on the basis that it violated a new specially-enacted municipal law that regulated the building of aerodromes. Decision The majority held that aeronautics was a distinctive matter of national importance and so should reside within the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal government under the "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 legiti ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
R V Boucher
''R v Boucher'' is a Supreme Court of Canada decision where the Court overturned a conviction for seditious libel on the grounds that criticizing the government was a valid form of protest. Background Aimé Boucher was a farmer in Beauce, Quebec, and a practising Jehovah's Witness. In 1946, he was arrested while distributing pamphlets entitled "Québec's Burning Hate for God and Christ and Freedom Is the Shame of all Canada." The pamphlets criticized the Québec government suppression of the Witnesses and the courts for doing nothing to prevent it. Boucher was charged for seditious libel — for endeavouring to promote public disorder — under section 133(2) of the Criminal Code. At trial, the jury found Boucher guilty, which was upheld on appeal.''Boucher v. The King'' |
Noble V Alley
''Noble and Wolf v Alley'' 951S.C.R. 64 is a famous Supreme Court of Canada decision where the Court struck down a restrictive covenant that restricted ownership of a section of land to "persons of the white or Caucasian race". Case history In 1933, Annie Noble had purchased a lot for a cottage in the Beach O' Pines area on Lake Huron. She decided in 1948 to sell the lot to Bernard Wolf. However, it was noticed that the original deed contained the following clause: :"(f) The lands and premises herein described shall never be sold, assigned, transferred, leased, rented or in any manner whatsoever alienated to, and shall never be occupied or used in any manner whatsoever by any person of the Jewish, Hebrew, Semitic, Negro or coloured race or blood, it being the intention and purpose of the Grantor, to restrict the ownership, use, occupation and enjoyment of the said recreational development, including the lands and premises herein described, to persons of the white or Caucasian ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Frey V Fedoruk
''Frey v Fedoruk'' 950S.C.R. 517 is a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada on the definition of a breach of the peace and whether being a "peeping tom" is a crime. The Court found that actions do not necessarily breach the peace just because they cause violent reactions. Due to this finding, courts would have less say in determining what is criminal as a breach of the peace, and the Parliament of Canada would have more. Background At the time, peeping was not specifically prohibited. Allegedly, the appellant Frey had left his truck to look into a window of a house at 11:15 P.M. A woman saw him looking in, and shouted, and her adult son took a butcher knife and went outside. He chased Frey, caught him, and called the police. The police, seeing footprints near the house, arrested Frey. Frey also alleged the police constable attacked him, although in court Frey mainly fought his arrest as false imprisonment. The British Columbia Court of Appeal found the imprisonment was not ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |