All Case Studies, Part I Flashcards
Define Buck v. Bell.
-Buck v. Bell: decision of the US supreme court written by Oliver Holmes: “Three generations of imbeciles are enough”
-Law permitting compulsory and involuntary sterilization of the “unfit” for the intellectual disabled for protection and health of the state
-Did not violate the US process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; favoring the collective over the individual
Supreme Court never overturned this
Case is often cited as one of the worst Supreme Court decision
State is justified in doing something extremely wrong or the collective good
-PASSED UNDER LEGAL POSITIVISM, EXAMPLE OF HOW LEGAL POSITIVISM CAN GO BAD
Define Ontario and the Sharia law issue.
when Ontario authorized the use of Sharia law for civil arbitrations (property, marriage, divorce, custody, bankruptcy, and inheritance) if both parties consent
Arbitrators could be imams, Muslim elder, or lawyers^^
Negate costs of seeking law, this would be an appropriate dispute resolution process*
Ontario rejected a bid to allow Sharia courts
Define the Opium Acts cases (1908, 1911, 1922).
(textbook) White working class men destroyed property of Chinese formal railway workers
Smoking opium was engaged in by Chinese laborers primarily
Opium was in a lot of medicinal products at the time
Define Haydon’s Case.
-Sheep should be contained in pens to avoid spread of contagious disease
-Swept over board in the ship when they were not kept in pens
-Owner sued and lost: this was not the mischief the statute intended to address (it intended to address contagious diseases, not loss overboard)
Put the “Rule in Haydon’s Case” at play, to look at the mischief statutes intend to address.
Define Haydon’s Case.
-Sheep should be contained in pens to avoid spread of contagious disease
-Swept over board in the ship when they were not kept in pens
-Owner sued and lost: this was not the mischief the statute intended to address (it intended to address contagious diseases, not loss overboard)
Put the “Rule in Haydon’s Case” at play, to look at the mischief statutes intend to address.
The Persons Case, Edwards v. A.G. of Canada, 1927
Whether women were to be considered persons and allowed to be in the Senate
Not that men didn’t want women to be in senate: it was the strict reading of a rule that led to this absurdity
In 1928 the Supreme Court of Canada that women were not “persons” according to the British North America Act; they were not eligible for appointment to the senate
Reversed this decision in 1929; women could no longer be denied rights based on a narrow interpretation of the meaning of person
-DEMONSTRATES THE LIVING TREE DOCTRINE AND FRAMERS INTENT: SHOULD THE LAW BE INTERPRETED AS NEEDING TO GROW AND FLOURISH AND ENCOMPASS AS MANY RIGHTS AS POSSIBLE?
OR SHOULD YOU LEAVE IT AS IT WAS ORIGINALLY MEANT (RIGID AND EXCLUSIVE)
Define the Delgamuukw case.
-dealt with the application for title to 58,000 km2 of land by hereditary chiefs of two nations to protect the land from logging and to seek compensation for loss of trees
-^BC trial court denied claim, arguing that this right extinguished when BC joined confederation (said Indigenous were not a distinct society within the confederation)
Supreme Court then affirmed that Aboriginal title constituted an ancestral right protected by the Constitution Act, 1982
Supreme Court found that the provincial government had no right to extinguish the land title rights to the ancestral territories; oral history testimony is evidence that courts must treat as equal to other evidence (Accepted oral history testimony)
DEMONSTRATES THE ACCEPTANCE OF ORAL HISTORY TESTIMONY, DEMONSTRATES PART II OF CONSTITUTION ACT (INDIGENOUS PEOPLES)
Define the Alberta Press Case.
- landmark reference of the Supreme Court of Canada where several provincial laws, including one restricting the press, were struck down and the existence of an implied bill of rights protecting civil liberties such as a free press was first proposed
-Government of AB wanted to censor press to perpetuate their own interests
-It was ruled that this decision was ultra vires (outside of Alberta’s hands)
BILL OF RIGHTS WAS THEN PROPOSED TO PROTECT CIVIL LIBERTIES
DEMONSTRATES ULTRA VIRES VS. INTRA VIRES CONCEPT
Define the Drybones Case.
-court ruled that a part of the Indian Act was to be instated as inoperative because it violated the “equality under the law” clause under the Bill of Rights
-it prohibited Aboriginals from being intoxicated off reserves
DEMONSTRATES the use of the Canadian Bill of Rights, which guarantees equality before the law in section 1(b).
Define the Lavell/Bedard Case.
In 1971 Jeannette Corbiere Lavell and Yvonne Bedard launched separate a court challenge against the Act charging that the provision that striped women who married non-indigenous men of their identities and their status as Indians was in violation of the equality clause under in the Canadian Bill of Rights
DEMONSTRATES USE OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS IN RELATION TO CIVIL LIBERTIES
Halpern v. R, 2003,
Ruling on law that confined marriage to heterosexual couples
Government’s logic: want to encourage procreation and the raising of children ONLY by heterosexual couples (discriminated against homosexual couple’s abilities to raise children)
The court ruling demeaned the dignity of same sex couples, and set values contrary to a free and democratic society
DEMONSTRATES THE LIMITATIONS ON RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS FROM THE CHARTER
Define Sask vs. Whatcott, 2013;
Hated on immutable characteristic using religion to justify it
Said homosexuality would kill children and cause disease and abuse
Ruled as hate propaganda
Ruled as group defamation
Hatred is defined as connecting a person’s immutable characteristics with ideas that will lead others to think that some harm should come to them: hate propaganda
DEMONSTRATED THE LIMITATIONS CLAUSE OF THE CHARTER IN RELATIONSHIP TO FREEDOM OF PRESS
Define RJR Mcdonald v. Canada.
Company challenged federal prohibition on tobacco advertising
Governments could not provide cause and effect between ban on advertising and reduction in smoking
Legislation’s limitation on freedom of expression was NOT Justified
Ban was NOT justified because it lacks rational connection between measure and the mischief intended to be prevented
DEMONSTRATES LIMITATION CLAUSE OF THE CHARTER IN RELATIONSHIP TO FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION
R.V Mogentaler Case
Morgentaler challenged state control over abortion (therapeutic abortion committees had to approve first)
Court agreed that the abortion scheme that controlled women’s ability to terminate the pregnancy was an unjustified infringement on Section 7 (right to life, liberty, and security of person)
DEMONSTRATES LIMITATIONS CLAUSE OF THE CHARTER IN RELATION TO THE CANADIAN CHARTER SECT. 7
Define Oliver Wendall Holmes “Shank Case”.
Oliver Wendall Holmes, “Shank” case in the Obiter (relates to communists dissenting against conscription during WWI, the court limits the freedom of dissent against this and then says you can’t yell fire in a crowded theater…conditions under which words are no longer words, but they become actions with immediate harm)
Demonstrates how something must reasonably address the objective
