Law Case Studies Canada

Law Case Studies Canada-62
These 37 Charter cases are intended to provide a broad overview of cases that had an impact on Canadian society and helped to build the legal framework for analyzing Charter claims.

Tags: How To Solve Sex ProblemsCritical Thinking For StudentsArgumentative Essay Sample ExamplesEtisalat Internet Business PlanEssays On Wal MartLiterature Review For Research ProposalCritique Of Research PaperOrganizing A Business PlanHero Essays About Beowulf

The province of British Columbia asked the Supreme Court to decide whether this clause was consistent with the Charter.

The majority of the Court found that the law was inconsistent with the Charter, based on the principle that no one should be put in jail if they have no intent to commit a criminal act. Motor Vehicle Act, [1985] 2 SCR 486 David Oakes was charged with the possession of a narcotic under the Narcotics Control Act.

This case was the Court’s first decision on equality rights.

It has influenced the development of equality law well beyond the specific facts of Mr.

In the end, the Court struck down the offence because it was irrational to assume an individual was trafficking narcotics simply because they possessed small amounts of them. Oakes, [1986] 1 SCR 103 Doctors Morgentaler, Smoling and Scott ran a clinic in Toronto that performed abortions for women who did not have a certificate from an accredited or approved hospital as required by the Criminal Code.

This decision also set out the framework for determining whether a law that limits a Charter-protected right or freedom can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. The doctors were charged with the intent to provide abortions in violation of the Criminal Code.

This is because the act forced everyone in Canada to observe the rules of one religion (Christianity), which limited the freedom of religion of those who did not share the same beliefs or practices. Big M Drug Mart, [1985] 1 SCR 295 A provision in a provincial Motor Vehicle Act stated that anyone found guilty of driving on a highway without a license or with a suspended license would face an automatic prison sentence.

This case recognizes that laws with the purpose of obliging Canadians to conform to a specific religious tradition cannot be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. This meant that drivers could be found guilty even if they did not know that their license was suspended.

Oakes argued that the act violated the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.

The Supreme Court agreed and found that the offence violated the presumption of innocence because it required the accused to prove his innocence, rather than the Crown to prove his guilt.


Comments Law Case Studies Canada

The Latest from ©