|
R. V. Daviault
''R v Daviault'' 9943 S.C.R. 63, is a Supreme Court of Canada decision on the availability of the defence of intoxication for "general intent" criminal offences. The Leary rule which eliminated the defence was found unconstitutional in violation of both section 7 and 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Instead, intoxication can only be used as a defence where it is so extreme that it is akin to automatism or insanity. Background On May 30, 1989, Henri Daviault, a 73-year-old chronic alcoholic, was asked to get some alcohol for a friend of his wife. The woman was a semi-paralyzed 65-year-old and required a wheelchair. Daviault brought a 40oz of brandy to the woman's house around 6pm. She drank half a glass and then passed out. Daviault drank the rest of the bottle while she slept. Some time in the evening she went to the washroom and was accosted by Daviault who took her into the bedroom and sexually assaulted her. Daviault was arrested and charged for sexual assa ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
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, whose decisions are the ultimate application of Canadian law, and grants permission to between 40 and 75 litigants each year to appeal decisions rendered by provincial, territorial and federal Appeal, appellate courts. The Supreme Court is bijural, hearing cases from two major legal traditions (common law and Civil law (legal system), civil law) and bilingual, hearing cases in both Official bilingualism in Canada, official languages of Canada (English language, English and French language, French). The effects of any judicial decision on the common law, on the interpretation of statutes, or on any other application of law, can, in effect, be nullified by legislation, unless the particular decision of the court in question involves applicatio ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Section Seven Of The Canadian Charter Of Rights And Freedoms
Section 7 of the ''Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms'' is a constitutional provision that protects an individual's autonomy and personal legal rights from actions of the government in Canada. There are three types of protection within the section: the right to life, liberty and security of the person. Denials of these rights are constitutional only if the denials do not breach what is referred to as fundamental justice. This ''Charter'' provision provides both substantive and procedural rights. It has broad application beyond merely protecting due process in administrative proceedings and in the adjudicative context, and has in certain circumstances touched upon major national policy issues such as entitlement to social assistance and public health care. As such, it has proven to be a controversial provision in the ''Charter''. Text Under the heading of "Legal Rights", the section states: Application The wording of section 7 says that it applies to "everyone". This inclu ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Section Eleven Of The Canadian Charter Of Rights And Freedoms
Section 11 of the ''Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms'' is the section of the Canadian Constitution that protects a person's legal rights in criminal and penal matters. There are nine enumerated rights protected in section 11. Right to be informed of the offence Section 11(a) provides that The right of a person charged with an offence to be informed of the offence originated in section 510 of the ''Criminal Code'' as well as legal tradition. Some courts have used section 510 to help read section 11(a), concluding that the right allows for a person to be "reasonable informed" of the charge; thus it does not matter if a summons simply summarizes a charge. In ''R. v. Nova Scotia Pharmaceutical Society'' the Supreme Court of Canada found that an open-ended statute (prohibiting companies from "unduly" lessening competition) was not a breach of Section 11(a). In '' R. v. Delaronde'' (1997), the Supreme Court of Canada found section 11 (a) is meant not only to guarantee a fair ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Canadian Charter Of Rights And Freedoms
The ''Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms'' (french: Charte canadienne des droits et libertés), often simply referred to as the ''Charter'' in Canada, is a bill of rights entrenched in the Constitution of Canada, forming the first part of the ''Constitution Act, 1982''. The ''Charter'' guarantees certain political rights to Canadian citizens and civil rights of everyone in Canada from the policies and actions of all areas and levels of the government. It is designed to unify Canadians around a set of principles that embody those rights. The ''Charter'' was signed into law by Queen Elizabeth II of Canada on April 17, 1982, along with the rest of the ''Constitution Act, 1982''. The ''Charter'' was preceded by the '' Canadian Bill of Rights'', enacted in 1960, which was a federal statute rather than a constitutional document. As a federal statute, the ''Bill of Rights'' could be amended through the ordinary legislative process and had no application to provincial laws. The ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Automatism (law)
In criminal law, automatism is a rarely used criminal defence. It is one of the mental condition defences that relate to the mental state of the defendant. Automatism can be seen variously as lack of voluntariness, lack of culpability (unconsciousness) or excuse. Automatism means that the defendant was not aware of his or her actions when making the particular movements that constituted the illegal act. For example, Esther Griggs in 1858 threw her child out of a first floor window believing that the house was on fire, while having a sleep terror. In 2002, Peter Buck, lead guitarist of the band R.E.M., was cleared of several charges, including assault, which resulted from automatism brought on by a bad interaction between alcohol and sleeping pills. In a 2009 case in Aberporth in west Wales, Brian Thomas strangled his wife in their camper van, also during a sleep terror, when he mistook his wife for an intruder. The defence of automatism is denying that the person was acting ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Mens Rea
In criminal law, (; Law Latin for "guilty mind") is the mental element of a person's intention to commit a crime; or knowledge that one's action (or lack of action) would cause a crime to be committed. It is considered a necessary element of many crimes. The standard common law test of criminal Legal liability, liability is expressed in the Latin phrase ,1 Subst. Crim. L. § 5.1(a) (3d ed.) i.e. "the act is not Culpability, culpable unless the mind is guilty". As a general rule, someone who acted without mental Fault (law), fault is not liable in criminal law Criminal law is the body of law that relates to crime. It prescribes conduct perceived as threatening, harmful, or otherwise endangering to the property, health, safety, and moral welfare of people inclusive of one's self. Most criminal law i ....". . . a person is not guilty of an offense unless he acted purposely, knowingly, recklessly or negligently, as the law may require, with respect to each material eleme ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Quebec Court Of Appeal
The Court of Appeal of Quebec (sometimes referred to as Quebec Court of Appeal or QCA) (in French: ''la Cour d'appel du Québec'') is the highest judicial court in Quebec, Canada. It hears cases in Quebec City and Montreal. History The Court was created on May 30, 1849, as the Court of Queen's Bench (''Cour du Banc de la Reine'' in French) – or Court of King's Bench (''Cour du Banc du Roi'' in French) depending on the gender of the current Monarch serving as Canada's head of state. The Court's judges had jurisdiction to try criminal cases until 1920, when it was transferred to the Superior Court. In 1974, it was officially renamed the Quebec Court of Appeal. Jurisdiction Under the Code of Civil Procedure of Quebec and the Criminal Code, someone wishing to appeal a decision of the either the Superior Court of Quebec or the Court of Quebec generally has 30 days to file an appeal with the Court of Appeal. Final judgments in civil cases are appellable as of right if the am ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Leary V
Leary may refer to: __NOTOC__ People * King Leary or Lóegaire mac Néill, an Irish king * Leary (surname) Places *Leary, Georgia, U.S. *Leary, Texas, U.S. Other uses *'' Leary v. United States'', a 1969 U.S. Supreme Court case * Lt. Leary series, a science fiction novel series by David Drake * USS ''Leary'', three ships of the United States Navy See also *O'Leary History Ancient The Uí Laoghaire clan, today associated with the Uibh Laoghaire parish in County Cork, is considered by scholars to have originated in the early Middle Ages on the south-west coast, in the area of Ros Ó gCairbre (Rosscarbery), ... * Lóegaire, an Irish anglicized to ''Leary'' {{disambig ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Fundamental Justice
In Canadian and New Zealand law, fundamental justice is the fairness underlying the administration of justice and its operation. The principles of fundamental justice are specific legal principles that command "significant societal consensus" as "fundamental to the way in which the legal system ought fairly to operate", per '' R v Malmo-Levine''. These principles may stipulate basic procedural rights afforded to anyone facing an adjudicative process or procedure that affects fundamental rights and freedoms, and certain substantive standards related to the rule of law that regulate the actions of the state (e.g., the rule against unclear or vague laws). The degree of protection dictated by these standards and procedural rights vary in accordance with the precise context, involving a contextual analysis of the affected person's interests. In other words, the more a person's rights or interests are adversely affected, the more procedural or substantive protections must be afforded to ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Oakes Test
Section 1 of the ''Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms'' is the section that confirms that the rights listed in the Charter are ''guaranteed''. The section is also known as the reasonable limits clause or limitations clause, as it legally allows the government to limit an individual's ''Charter'' rights. This limitation on rights has been used in the last twenty years to prevent a variety of objectionable conduct such as child pornography (e.g., in ''R v Sharpe''), hate speech (e.g., in ''R v Keegstra''), and obscenity (e.g., in ''R v Butler''). When the government has limited an individual's right, there is an onus upon the Crown to show, on the balance of probabilities, firstly, that the limitation was ''prescribed by law'' namely, that the law is attuned to the values of ''accessibility'' and ''intelligibility''; and secondly, that it is ''justified in a free and democratic society'', which means that it must have a justifiable purpose and must be proportional. Text Under ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Balance Of Probabilities
In a legal dispute, one party has the burden of proof to show that they are correct, while the other party had no such burden and is presumed to be correct. The burden of proof requires a party to produce evidence to establish the truth of facts needed to satisfy all the required legal elements of the dispute. The burden of proof is usually on the person who brings a claim in a dispute. It is often associated with the Latin maxim ''semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit'', a translation of which is: "the necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges." In civil suits, for example, the plaintiff bears the burden of proof that the defendant's action or inaction caused injury to the plaintiff, and the defendant bears the burden of proving an affirmative defense. The burden of proof is on the prosecutor for criminal cases, and the defendant is presumed innocent. If the claimant fails to discharge the burden of proof to prove their case, the claim will b ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Jean Chrétien
Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien (; born January 11, 1934) is a Canadian lawyer and politician who served as the 20th prime minister of Canada from 1993 to 2003. Born and raised in Shawinigan Falls, Quebec, Chrétien is a law graduate from Université Laval. A Liberal, he was first elected to the House of Commons in 1963. He served in various cabinet posts under Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, most prominently as minister of Indian affairs and northern development, president of the Treasury Board, minister of finance, and minister of justice. He ran unsuccessfully for the leadership of the Liberal Party in 1984, losing to John Turner. Chrétien served as the second deputy prime minister of Canada in Turner's short-lived government which would be defeated in the 1984 federal election. After Turner led the Liberals to their second defeat at the polls in 1988, Chrétien became leader of the Liberals and leader of the Opposition in 1990, returning to politics after briefly worki ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
