|
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 violated section 11(d) of the Charter and whether any violation of section 11(d) could be upheld under section 1. Court's reasons The Court was unanimous in holding that the ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Court Of Appeal For Ontario
The Court of Appeal for Ontario (frequently referred to as the Ontario Court of Appeal or ONCA) is the appellate court for the province of Ontario, Canada. The seat of the court is Osgoode Hall in downtown Toronto, also the seat of the Law Society of Ontario and the Divisional Court of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. Description The Court is composed of 22 judicial seats, in addition to one or more justices who sit supernumerary. They hear over 1,500 appeals each year, on issues of private law, constitutional law, criminal law, administrative law and other matters. The Supreme Court of Canada hears appeals from less than 3% of the decisions of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, therefore in a practical sense, the Court of Appeal is the last avenue of appeal for most litigants in Ontario. Among the Court of Appeal's most notable decisions was the 2003 ruling in ''Halpern v Canada (AG)'' that found defining marriage as between one man and one woman to violate Section 15 of th ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Supreme Court Reports (Canada)
The Supreme Court Reports (S.C.R.) is the official reporter of the Supreme Court of Canada. Since the creation of the Supreme Court, all of its decisions have been published in the Reports, in both English and French. The first volume was published in 1877 containing the first case ever heard by the Supreme Court, '' Kelly v. Sullivan''. Initially, the reports were identified from 1 to 64, but from 1923 they have been identified by their year of publication. By 1975 the reporter started putting out two volumes a year, which increased to between 3 and 4 by 1990. Volumes from 1983 and later are also available in electronic format, hosted by LexUM at the Université de Montréal The Université de Montréal (UdeM; ; translates to University of Montreal) is a French-language public research university in Montreal, Quebec, Canada. The university's main campus is located in the Côte-des-Neiges neighborhood of Côte- .... External links lexum database of Supreme Court Repor ... [...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 One Of The Canadian Charter Of Rights And Freedoms
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 Und ... [...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] |
CanLII
The Canadian Legal Information Institute (CanLII; french: Institut canadien d'information juridique) is a non-profit organization created and funded by the Federation of Law Societies of Canada in 2001 on behalf of its 14 member societies. CanLII is a member of the Free Access to Law Movement The Free Access to Law Movement (FALM) is the international movement and organization devoted to providing free online access to legal information such as case law, legislation, treaties, law reform proposals and legal scholarship. The movement b ..., which includes the primary stakeholders involved in free, open publication of law throughout the world. Background CanLII offers free public access to over 2.4 million documents across more than 300 case law and legislative databases. It is used by lawyers, legal professionals and the general public, with usage averaging over 30,000 visits per day. The case law database is reportedly growing at a rate of approximately 120,000 new cases each y ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Reverse Onus
A reverse onus clause is a provision within a statute that shifts the burden of proof onto the individual specified to disprove an element of the information. Typically, this particular provision concerns a shift in burden onto a defendant in either a criminal offence or tort claim. For example, the automotive legislation in many countries provides that any driver who hits a pedestrian has the burden of establishing that they were not negligent. Canada Reverse onus clauses can be seen in the Criminal Code, where the accused must disprove an imposed presumption. These sorts of provisions are contentious as they almost always violate the presumption of innocence protected under section 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The only way that such a provision can survive Charter scrutiny is if it can be justified under section 1. The Supreme Court of Canada has struck down a number of reverse onus provisions. The first and most famous of them was the striking down o ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Presumption Of Innocence
The presumption of innocence is a legal principle that every person accused of any crime is considered innocent until proven guilty. Under the presumption of innocence, the legal burden of proof is thus on the prosecution, which must present compelling evidence to the trier of fact (a judge or a jury). If the prosecution does not prove the charges true, then the person is acquitted of the charges. The prosecution must in most cases prove that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If reasonable doubt remains, the accused must be acquitted. The opposite system is a presumption of guilt. In many countries and under many legal systems, including common law and civil law systems (not to be confused with the other kind of civil law, which deals with non-criminal legal issues), the presumption of innocence is a legal right of the accused in a criminal trial. It is also an international human right under the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 11. Hist ... [...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] |
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 Substances Act.'' It implemented the provisions of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs. The "narcotics" included in the ''Act'' are drugs such as heroin, cocaine and cannabis. The ''Act'' prohibits activities such as possession of a "narcotic", possession for the purpose of trafficking, cultivating, importing or exporting. Section 3 of the ''Act'' prohibits the possession of the "narcotic". A person is authorized to have a narcotic in his or her possession if he or she requires the narcotic for his business or profession and is a licensed dealer, a pharmacist, or a practitioner who is registered and entitled to practice in the province in which he has such possession. The maximum penalty for possession of narcotics is 7 years' imprisonment. Section 4 of the ''Act'' prohibits the trafficking of a narcotic or the ... [...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] |
R V Big M Drug Mart Ltd
''R v Big M Drug Mart Ltd'' ''(Her Majesty The Queen in Right of Canada v Big M Drug Mart Ltd)'' is a landmark decision by Supreme Court of Canada where the Court struck down the federal ''Lord's Day Act'' for violating section 2 of the ''Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms''. This case had many firsts in constitutional law including being the first to interpret section 2. Background On Sunday, May 30, 1982, the Calgary store Big M Drug Mart was charged with unlawfully carrying on the sale of goods on a Sunday contrary to the ''Lord's Day Act'' of 1906. At trial the store was acquitted and an appeal was dismissed by the Alberta Court of Appeal. The constitutional question put before the Court was whether the Act infringed the right to freedom of conscience and religion, if so, whether it is justified under section 1 of the ''Charter'', and whether the Act was ''intra vires'' ("within") Parliament's criminal power under section 91(27) of the ''Constitution Act, 1867''. ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
