|
Valente V R
''Valente v R'', 9852 S.C.R. 673 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on protection of judicial independence under section 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Background A Provincial Court of Ontario judge held that he could not decide a sentence appeal for a conviction of careless driving under the Ontario Highway Traffic Act because he was not in a position to judge whether he was independent, and a person charged with an offense has a right to an independent tribunal under section 11(d) of the Charter. (Upon review, appellate courts chose to interpret the judge's decision as holding that he was ''not'' sitting as an independent judge under the meaning of section 11(d) of the Charter). Section 11(d) had come into effect in 1982; until then, only higher-level judges were independent under the Constitution. The concern was that the judiciary was vulnerable to the influence of the executive of the government. Among the listed specific concerns were tha ... [...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] |
List Of Supreme Court Of Canada Cases (Dickson Court)
This is a chronological list of notable cases decided by the Supreme Court of Canada from Brian Dickson's appointment as Chief Justice on April 18, 1984, to his retirement on June 30, 1990. 1984 19851989 1990 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 (1984-1990) ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Canadian Charter Of Rights And Freedoms Case Law
Canadians (french: Canadiens) are people identified with the country of Canada. This connection may be residential, legal, historical or cultural. For most Canadians, many (or all) of these connections exist and are collectively the source of their being ''Canadian''. Canada is a multilingual and multicultural society home to people of groups of many different ethnic, religious, and national origins, with the majority of the population made up of Old World immigrants and their descendants. Following the initial period of French and then the much larger British colonization, different waves (or peaks) of immigration and settlement of non-indigenous peoples took place over the course of nearly two centuries and continue today. Elements of Indigenous, French, British, and more recent immigrant customs, languages, and religions have combined to form the culture of Canada, and thus a Canadian identity. Canada has also been strongly influenced by its linguistic, geographic, and ec ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Provincial Court Judges' Assn Of New Brunswick V New Brunswick (Minister Of Justice)
''Provincial Court Judges' Assn of New Brunswick v New Brunswick (Minister of Justice); Ontario Judges Assn v Ontario (Management Board); Bodner v Alberta; Conférence des juges du Québec v Quebec (AG); Minc v Quebec (AG)'' 0052 S.C.R. 286 was a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada in which the Court attempted to resolve questions about judicial independence left over from the landmark ''Provincial Judges Reference'' (1997). The Court found that government remuneration of provincial court judges that is lower than what an independent salary commission recommended can be justified. A broader perspective should be taken whether overall conditions of judicial independence have been met and some deference to the government is needed. Background The decision arose from cases from four different provinces, namely ''Provincial Court Judges’ Assn. of New Brunswick v. New Brunswick (Minister of Justice)'' from New Brunswick, ''Ontario Judges’ Assn. v. Ontario (Management Board)'' f ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Re Therrien
''Re Therrien'', [2001] 2 S.C.R. 3, 2001 SCC 35, is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on judicial independence. Background In the 1970s, Richard Therrien was convicted of assisting four members of the Front de libération du Québec during the October Crisis. Once he was released he studied law and was eventually given a pardon. Years later he applied for a position on the Quebec bench as a judge. As part of his application he disclosed his criminal record and his pardon. He was rejected based on this history. Later he applied again, this time he did not reveal his criminal history and was accepted. Once the committee discovered the existence of a criminal history they got the Minister of Justice to issue a complaint to the Quebec Conseil de la magistrature. The Conseil found the complaint to be justified and recommended that he be removed from the bench. Therrien applied to have the decision of the Conseil to be judicially reviewed and challenged the constitutional ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
MacKeigan V Hickman
''Mackeigan v Hickman'', 9892 S.C.R. 796 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on judicial independence. The Court unanimously held that to require a federal judge to explain his or her decisions would violate the principle of judicial independence. Background Donald Marshall was an Aboriginal youth who was wrongly convicted of murder in 1971. In 1983, the federal government, on the basis of new evidence, referred the case to the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal who overturned the conviction. The panel which heard the reference included Justice Pace who was the Attorney General of Nova Scotia at the time of the investigation in 1971. At the end of the Court's judgement it was observed that Marshall was largely at fault for his own conviction by misleading the investigation and that "any miscarriage of justice was more apparent than real". This comment had a major effect on the amount of settlement Marshall received. In 1986, the Nova Scotia government established a royal co ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
R V Généreux
''R v Généreux'', 9921 S.C.R. 259 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision where the Court ruled that that the military court martial system must comply with the constitutional requirements for judicial independence under section 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Background Michel Généreux was a corporal in the Canadian Forces. He was charged with drug possession for the purpose of trafficking in violation of section 4 of the ''Narcotics Control Act'' and for desertion in violation of section 88(1) of the ''National Defence Act''. In the General Court Martial he was convicted for both offences, which was upheld in the Court Martial Appeal Court. The issue before the Supreme Court was whether the General Court Martial was an independent and impartial tribunal under section 11(d) of the ''Charter''. Opinion of the Court The Court examined the requirements for judicial independence established in '' Valente v. The Queen'' 985 It was found that the judg ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Beauregard V Canada
''Beauregard v Canada'' 9862 S.C.R. 56 was a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada on judicial independence. Notably, the Court found that judicial independence is based partly in an unwritten constitution, and that some institutional independence is needed so that judges can guard the Constitution of Canada. These findings were repeated, with far-reaching consequences, in the ''Provincial Judges Reference'' (1997). Background The case concerned section 100 of the ''Constitution Act, 1867''. As part of a guarantee of judicial independence for federally appointed judges, the section provides that "The Salaries, Allowances, and Pensions of the Judges of the Superior, District, and County Courts (except the Courts of Probate in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick), and of the Admiralty Courts in Cases where the Judges thereof are for the Time being paid by Salary, shall be fixed and provided by the Parliament of Canada." A salary fixed by the Parliament of Canada was preferable to a sa ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Obiter Dicta
''Obiter dictum'' (usually used in the plural, ''obiter dicta'') is a Latin phrase meaning "other things said",'' Black's Law Dictionary'', p. 967 (5th ed. 1979). that is, a remark in a legal opinion that is "said in passing" by any judge or arbitrator. It is a concept derived from English common law, whereby a judgment comprises only two elements: ''ratio decidendi'' and ''obiter dicta''. For the purposes of judicial precedent, ''ratio decidendi'' is binding, whereas ''obiter dicta'' are persuasive only. Significance A judicial statement can be ''ratio decidendi'' only if it refers to the crucial facts and law of the case. Statements that are not crucial, or which refer to hypothetical facts or to unrelated law issues, are ''obiter dicta''. ''Obiter dicta'' (often simply ''dicta'', or ''obiter'') are remarks or observations made by a judge that, although included in the body of the court's opinion, do not form a necessary part of the court's decision. In a court opinion, ''obite ... [...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] |
Provincial Judges Reference
The ''Reference re Remuneration of Judges of the Provincial Court (P.E.I.)'' 9973 S.C.R. 3 is a leading opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada in response to a reference question regarding remuneration and the independence and impartiality of provincial court judges. Notably, the majority opinion found all judges are independent, not just superior court judges and inferior court judges concerned with criminal law, as the written constitution stipulates. Unwritten constitutional principles were relied upon to demonstrate this, indicating such principles were growing in importance in constitutional interpretation. The reference also remains one of the most definitive statements on the extent to which all judges in Canada are protected by the Constitution. The majority opinion established that independent compensation commissions are required to help set salaries free of political manipulation. These commissions, described by the majority as "an institutional sieve" and by the dis ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Parliament Of Canada
The Parliament of Canada (french: Parlement du Canada) is the federal legislature of Canada, seated at Parliament Hill in Ottawa, and is composed of three parts: the King, the Senate, and the House of Commons. By constitutional convention, the House of Commons is dominant, with the Senate rarely opposing its will. The Senate reviews legislation from a less partisan standpoint and may initiate certain bills. The monarch or his representative, normally the governor general, provides royal assent to make bills into law. The governor general, on behalf of the monarch, summons and appoints the 105 senators on the advice of the prime minister, while each of the 338 members of the House of Commons – called members of Parliament (MPs) – represents an electoral district, commonly referred to as a ''riding'', and are elected by Canadian voters residing in the riding. The governor general also summons and calls together the House of Commons, and may prorogue or dissolve Parliament, ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
.jpg "Click for more on -> Parliament Of Canada")