|
R V Martineau
''R v Martineau'', 9902 SCR 633 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada case on the '' mens rea'' requirement for murder. Background One evening in February 1985, Patrick Tremblay and 15-year-old Mr. Martineau set out to rob a trailer owned by the McLean family in Valleyview, Alberta. Martineau was armed with a pellet gun and Tremblay was armed with a rifle. Martineau was under the impression they were going to commit only breaking and entering and that no one would be killed. However, during the robbery, Tremblay shot and killed Mr. and Mrs. McLean. Martineau was charged with second degree murder under section 213(a) and (d) of the ''Criminal Code'' (now section 230(a) and (d)) for both deaths (under section 21(1) and (2)) and was transferred to adult court. At trial, Martineau was convicted. On appeal, the Alberta Court of Appeal overturned the decision, holding that section 213(a) violated section 7 and section 11(d) of the ''Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms'' ("''Char ... [...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] |
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] |
Burglary
Burglary, also called breaking and entering and sometimes housebreaking, is the act of entering a building or other areas without permission, with the intention of committing a criminal offence. Usually that offence is theft, robbery or murder, but most jurisdictions include others within the ambit of burglary. To commit burglary is to ''burgle'', a term back-formed from the word ''burglar'', or to ''burglarize''. Etymology Sir Edward Coke (1552–1634) explains at the start of Chapter 14 in the third part of ''Institutes of the Lawes of England'' (pub. 1644), that the word ''Burglar'' ("''or the person that committeth burglary''"), is derived from the words ''burgh'' and ''laron'', meaning ''house-thieves''. A note indicates he relies on the ''Brooke's case'' for this definition. According to one textbook, the etymology originates from Anglo-Saxon or Old English, one of the Germanic languages. (Perhaps paraphrasing Sir Edward Coke:) "The word ''burglar'' comes from the two Ge ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Criminal Code (Canada)
The ''Criminal Code'' (french: Code criminel)The citation of this Act by these short titles is authorised by thEnglishantexts of section 1. is a law that codifies most criminal offences and procedures in Canada. Its official long title is ''An Act respecting the Criminal Law'' (French: ), and it is sometimes abbreviated as ''Cr.C.'' (French: ) in legal reports. Section 91(27) of the ''Constitution Act, 1867'' establishes the sole jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada over criminal law. The ''Criminal Code'' contains some defences, but most are part of the common law rather than statute. Important Canadian criminal laws not forming part of the code include the ''Firearms Act'', the ''Controlled Drugs and Substances Act'', the ''Canada Evidence Act'', the ''Food and Drugs Act'', the ''Youth Criminal Justice Act'' and the ''Contraventions Act''. One of the conveniences of the ''Criminal Code'' was that it constituted the principle that no person would be able to be convic ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Alberta Court Of Appeal
The Court of Appeal of Alberta (frequently referred to as Alberta Court of Appeal or ABCA) is a Canadian appellate court. Jurisdiction and hierarchy within Canadian courts The court is the highest in Alberta, Canada. It hears appeals from the Alberta Court of King's Bench, the Provincial Court of Alberta, and administrative boards and tribunals, as well as references from the Lieutenant Governor in Council (essentially the Alberta Cabinet). Some administrative appeals may bypass the Court of King's Bench, commonly orders made by professional discipline boards under the ''Medical Profession Act'', the ''Legal Profession Act'', but also under the ''Energy Resources Conservation Act''. Appeals from the Court of Appeal lie with the Supreme Court of Canada, Canada's court of last resort. Other than certain criminal matters, appeals to the Supreme Court of Canada are heard only by leave of that court. Since the Supreme Court denies leave in most cases, the Court of Appeal is th ... [...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] |
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] |
Brian Dickson
Robert George Brian Dickson (May 25, 1916 – October 17, 1998) was a Canadian lawyer, military officer and judge. He was appointed a puisne justice of the Supreme Court of Canada on March 26, 1973, and subsequently appointed the 15th Chief Justice of Canada on April 18, 1984. He retired on June 30, 1990. Dickson's tenure as chief justice coincided with the first wave of cases under the new ''Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms'' which reached the Supreme Court from 1984 onwards. Dickson wrote several very influential judgments dealing with the ''Charter'' and laid the groundwork for the approach that the courts would take to the ''Charter''. Early life and family Dickson was born to Thomas Dickson and Sarah Elizabeth Gibson, in Yorkton, Saskatchewan, in 1916, although the family lived at that time in Wynyard.M.A. MacPherson, "About Brian, Bill and Me: Regina Collegiate", in DeLloyd J. Guth (ed.), ''Brian Dickson at the Supreme Court of Canada 1973-1990'' (Winnipeg: Canad ... [...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 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] |
List Of Supreme Court Of Canada Cases (Lamer Court)
This is a chronological list of notable cases decided by the Supreme Court of Canada from appointment of Antonio Lamer as Chief Justice of Canada to his retirement. 19901994 19951999 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 (1990-2000) ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
