|
Test (law)
In law, a test is a commonly applied method of evaluation used to resolve matters of jurisprudence. In the context of a trial, a hearing, discovery, or other kinds of legal proceedings, the resolution of certain questions of fact or law may hinge on the application of one or more legal tests. Tests are often formulated from the logical analysis of a judicial decision or a court order where it appears that a finder of fact or the court made a particular decision after contemplating a well-defined set of circumstances. It is assumed that evaluating any given set of circumstances under a legal test will lead to an unambiguous and repeatable result. Kinds of legal tests * Bright-line rule * Balancing test International law *Berne three-step test * Habitual residence test * ''Caroline'' test Common law * "But-for" test Canada * ''Andrews'' test * Air of reality test (see alsR v Fontaine * Assumed Jurisdiction test *Central management and control test * ''Collins'' Test *Com ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Jurisprudence
Jurisprudence, or legal theory, is the theoretical study of the propriety of law. Scholars of jurisprudence seek to explain the nature of law in its most general form and they also seek to achieve a deeper understanding of legal reasoning and analogy, legal systems, legal institutions, and the proper application of law, the economic analysis of law and the role of law in society. Modern jurisprudence began in the 18th century and it was based on the first principles of natural law, civil law, and the law of nations. General jurisprudence can be divided into categories both by the type of question scholars seek to answer and by the theories of jurisprudence, or schools of thought, regarding how those questions are best answered. Contemporary philosophy of law, which deals with general jurisprudence, addresses problems internal to law and legal systems and problems of law as a social institution that relates to the larger political and social context in which it exists ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Club Resorts Ltd V Van Breda
''Club Resorts Ltd v Van Breda'', 2012 SCC 17, is a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada that has brought greater certainty to the question of a real and substantial connection in the assumption of civil jurisdiction by Canadian courts in matters concerning the conflict of laws. The facts In separate cases, two individuals were injured while on vacation outside of Canada. Van Breda suffered catastrophic injuries on a beach in Cuba, and Charron died while scuba diving there. Actions were brought in Ontario against a number of parties, including Club Resorts Ltd., a company incorporated in the Cayman Islands, that managed the two hotels where the accidents occurred. Club Resorts sought to block those proceedings, arguing that: :* the Ontario courts lacked jurisdiction, and, in the alternative, :* a Cuban court would be a more appropriate forum on the basis of the doctrine of '' forum non conveniens''. In both cases, the judges at first instance held that Ontario courts did ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
R V Heywood
''R v Heywood'' 1994 3 S.C.R. 761 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on the concept of fundamental justice in section seven of the Charter. The Court found that section 179(1)(b) of the Criminal Code for vagrancy was overbroad and thus violated section 7 and could not be saved under section 1. Background In 1987, Heywood was convicted under section 246.1(1) (now s. 271(1)) of the Criminal Code for sexual assault of children. The conviction made him subject to section 179(1)(b) which prevented certain convicted individuals from loitering. In July 1989, Heywood was arrested in Beacon Hill Park in Victoria for loitering "at or near a playground" under section 179(1). He had been spotted several times previously near the playground carrying a camera with a telephoto lens. Upon arrest the police got a search warrant and found collections of pictures of children at play. At trial, Heywood argued that the law violated section 7, 11(d), 12, and 15 of the Charter. The court f ... [...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 Und ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
General Motors Of Canada Ltd V City National Leasing
''General Motors of Canada Ltd v City National Leasing'' is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on the scope of the Trade and Commerce power of the Constitution Act, 1867 as well as the interpretation of the Ancillary doctrine. Background From 1970 through 1980, General Motors (GM) sold vehicles to both City National Leasing (CNL) and to CNL's competitors. It was discovered that GM, through GMAC (now Ally Financial), was giving CNL's competitor a better interest rate than CNL. CNL contended that this was a practice of price discrimination contrary to s. 34(1)(a) of the ''Combines Investigation Act'', giving it a cause for action under s. 31.1 of the Act. It sued GM for lost profits, related interest, and breach of contract for damages arising after March 1980. In its defence, GM argued that: :* certain paragraphs of the statement of claim should be struck out as disclosing no cause of action because GM had never made any sales directly to CNL or to its competitors, and t ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Law V Canada (Minister Of Employment And Immigration)
''Law v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration)'', [1999] 1 SCR 497 is a Lists of landmark court decisions, leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on Section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 15 of the ''Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms''. The ruling is notable because the court created the ''Law'' test, a significant new tool that has since been used by Canadian courts for determining the validity of equality rights claims under section 15. However, the ''Law'' test has since been discredited by the Supreme Court. Background The case involved Nancy Law, a 30-year-old seeking survivor benefits under the Canada Pension Plan (CPP) which are limited only to people over age 35, disabled or with dependants at the time of the deceased's death. Otherwise, the survivor claimant is not entitled to benefits until he or she reaches age 65. She appealed to the Pension Plan Review Tribunal on the basis the age requirement was in violation of her equalit ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Meiorin Case
''British Columbia (Public Service Employee Relations Commission) v British Columbia Government Service Employees' Union'' 9993 SCR 3, – called ''Meiorin'' for short – is a Supreme Court of Canada case that created a unified test to determine if a violation of human rights legislation can be justified as a ''bona fide'' occupational requirement (BFOR). Background Before ''Meiorin'', Human Rights violations were treated in one of two ways; either as "direct discrimination", pursuant to the analysis in '' Ontario (Human Rights Commission) v Etobicoke (Borough of)'', 9821 SCR 202; or as "adverse effects discrimination", pursuant to the analysis in '' Ontario (Human Rights Commission) v Simpsons-Sears Ltd'', 9852 SCR 536. Academic writing deeply criticized this bifurcation of analysis as arbitrary and unhelpful in protecting equality rights. With the ''Meiorin'' case, the court decided to confront this criticism and refashion the analysis. Facts Tawney Meiorin was em ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Interjurisdictional Immunity
In Canadian Constitutional law, interjurisdictional immunity is the legal doctrine that determines which legislation arising from one level of jurisdiction may be applicable to matters covered at another level. Interjurisdictional immunity is an exception to the pith and substance doctrine, as it stipulates that there is a core to each federal subject matter that cannot be reached by provincial laws. While a provincial law that imposes a tax on banks may be ruled ''intra vires'', as it is not within the protected core of banking, a provincial law that limits the rights of creditors to enforce their debts would strike at such a core and be ruled inapplicable. The paramountcy doctrine states that if two pieces of legislation meet, regulate the same activities, and conflict, the federal legislation is paramount, prevails and renders the provincial legislation ''inoperative''. In contrast, the ''interjurisdictional immunity doctrine'' is activated even if there is no meeting of legislat ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
R V Van Der Peet
''R v Van der Peet'', 9962 S.C.R. 507 is a leading case on Aboriginal rights under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. The Supreme Court held that Aboriginal fishing rights did not extend to commercial selling of fish. From this case came the Van der Peet test for determining if an Aboriginal right exists. This is the first of three cases known as the Van der Peet trilogy which included ''R v NTC Smokehouse Ltd'' and ''R v Gladstone''. On September 11, 1987, Steven and Charles Jimmy caught sockeye salmon near Chilliwack. The men were both holders of valid native food fish licenses, so the fish were legally caught, but they were forbidden from selling the fish. Charles Jimmy brought the fish to his common-law partner, Dorothy Van der Peet, a member of the Stó:lō Nation, and she cleaned the fish and set them on ice. Van der Peet was visited by Marie Lugsdin, a non-Indigenous person, who offered to purchase ten fish at $5 a piece, for a total of $50. Van der Peet agreed and ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
R V Kouri
''R v Kouri'' 2005 SCC 81 (CanLII), was a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada that, along with its sister case ''R v Labaye'', established that harm is the sole defining element of indecency in Canadian criminal law. The case involved a club in which couples engaged in group sex; the club was alleged to be a "common bawdy-house" (a house in which indecency or prostitution occurs). The acquittal was upheld by the Supreme Court. Background In 1997, James Kouri, the owner of the Montreal club Coeur à Corps, was accused of operating a common bawdy-house and fined $7,500CBC News,Swingers clubs don't harm society, top court rules" December 21, 2005, URL accessed 23 December 2005. under section 210(1) of the Criminal Code. The fine came after undercover investigations of the club by police that started in 1996, although the club had been established in 1985. The group sex club was for couples who, upon entering, would be asked if they were a "liberated couple." Only those who repl ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
R V Suberu
''R v Suberu'is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on section 9 and section 10 of the ''Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms''. The Court applied the new test for detention created in the companion case of ''R v Grant'' and ruled on the timing of when an individual is required to be informed of his or her rights to counsel after being arrested or detained. Background On June 13, 2008, Musibau Suberu and a colleague made a one-day shopping trip east of Toronto to purchase merchandise, pre-paid shopping cards, and gift certificates from Wal-Mart and the LCBO using a stolen credit card. The staff of a store in Cobourg, Ontario were warned to look out for the pair, after they reportedly bought $100 gift certificates from a different store using the stolen credit card. When Suberu's associate went to buy some merchandise at the Cobourg store with a $100 gift certificate, store employees began to stall Suberu's associate. A police constable unaware of the background ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
R V Grant
''R v Grant'', 2009 SCC 32 is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on section 9, section 10 and section 24(2) of the ''Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms'' ("''Charter''"). The Court created a number of factors to consider when determining whether a person had been detained for the purpose of sections 9 and 10 of the ''Charter''. The Court also created a new test for determining whether evidence obtained by a ''Charter'' breach should be excluded under section 24(2) of the ''Charter'', replacing the ''Collins'' test. Background Three Toronto police officers were patrolling a school area known for a high crime rate for the purposes of monitoring the area and maintaining a safe student environment. Police observed Donnohue Grant in the area, acting suspiciously. A uniformed police officer went to speak to Mr. Grant, asked him what was going on and asked him for his name and address. Mr. Grant handed over his identification and continued acting nervously. He went ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
