CASES Flashcards
Justice’s Balancing Act - R. v Clayton & Farmer
The Supreme Court overturned an Ontario Court of Appeal judgment that threw out gun possession charges against two men searched when police set up a roadblock outside a Toronto-area strip club as a result of information received from a 911 call. The Court of Appeal said police did not tailor their roadblock in any way to the information in the gun call and decided to stop every car leaving the club. The Supreme Court found there was no Charter violation and noted the increasing problem of gun crime in Canada.
Justice’s Balancing Act - R. v Singh
A suspect in police custody has the right to meet with a lawyer. The lawyer is not permitted to be present when the suspect is interrogated by police. In a 5-4 decision, the court reaffirmed the principle that police can continue to question a suspect at length, even if he repeatedly tries to invoke his right to silence, as Jagrup Singh did, nearly 20 times.
Justice’s Balancing Act - R. v Grandinetti
Statements made by a suspect to a “person in authority” can only be admitted if they are made voluntarily. In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court said that a suspect’s admissions to undercover officers posing as a crime gang in a “Mr. Big” sting, who claimed to have contacts with corrupt police, were not made to a person in authority.
Justice’s Balancing Act - R. v Mann
The majority of the Supreme Court overturned the conviction of an aboriginal man in Winnipeg stopped by police while walking along a downtown street because he looked like a robbery suspect. A small amount of marijuana was found when an officer reached into the pocket of the suspect. The court found the search to be unreasonable. However, for the first time it recognized a “common-law” or judge-made right of police to detain and search people as long as there are “reasonable grounds” that the person is connected to a particular crime.
Justice’s Balancing Act - R. v Tessling
The use of thermal-imaging technology by police to take a “heat” picture of someone’s home while flying over it, primarily for use in marijuana investigations, was permitted by the Supreme Court. In contrast, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled three years earlier that the practice was unconstitutional.
What happened in the Shack v. London case?
A company was looking for someone who could fill their open position for clerk at their vehicle rental company. The person would need to be able to deal with the public, use a typewriter, handle cash, and help strip stake trucks, etc… Betty Ann Shack applied for the position, but upon her arrival she was refused an interview on the pretext that the job was filled. She filed a complaint to the Ontario Human Rights Commission stating that she had been denied on the basis of her sex. The company argued that being a male was a bona fide job qualification. She won her case and the company had to give her 100$ (637$ today)
What happened in the Thwaites v. Canada case?
The complainant had been a Naval Electronics sensor operation aboard a Canadian naval destroyer. Diagnosed HIV-positive and was investigated for suspected homosexuality. After the investigation, security status was downgraded and was reassigned to door attendant at the office headquarters. He was monitored by medical specialists and was recommended for treatment. Although he was doing better with the treatment, the base surgeon said he was unfit for duties due to needing treatment. Filed a complaint under the CHRA on the basis of discrimination because of disability. They tried to defend with “undue hardship”, but they couldn’t prove it. Complainant won, awarded 152,015$
What happened in R. v. Big M Drug Mart?
In 1985 , Charged with violating section 4 of the Lord’s Day Act, making it unlawful to sell goods on the “Lord’s Day” on Sunday. They challenged that the Lord’s Day Act went against their religious freedoms guaranteed in section 2(a) of the charter. Went to the supreme court, found that the act went against religious freedoms as guaranteed by the charter and was thus struck down.
What happened in R. v. Robertson and Rosetanni?
In 1963, Convicted of operating their bowling business on a Sunday, going against the Lord’s Day Act. They appealed their conviction to the supreme court. The appeal was dismissed. They argued that regardless of one person’s belief, they still have to abide by the rules of the society they choose to live in. This was before the Charter was enacted
What happened in R. v. Morgentaler?
He fought for women’s legal rights r egardingabortion, argued they went against the charter sections 7 and 15. Charged with violating section 251 of the Criminal Code, which states that anyone who knowingly helps terminate a pregnancy may be sentenced to life imprisonment. He won, and as a result, Canada abolished laws restricting abortion.
What happened in R. v. Keegstra?
He spread false information about the Holocaust (but didn’t publish), and was charged with violating section 319 of the criminal code, which prevents the promoting of hatred against identifiable groups. In his defence he used section 1, and 11d of the charter, but he lost the case.
What happened in R. v. Zundel?
He published misinformation regarding the holocaust, which goes against s. 181 of the criminal code (anyone who publishes a statement they know to be false & is likely to cause harm, is guilty of an offence). He appealed 2 times to the charges, and both times he got denied, so he felt like his freedom of speech (2b), and section 7 was being violated. Ruled in favor of Zundel, section 181 is unconstitutional.
What happened in Canada v. Bedford?
Sex workers argued that section of the Criminal Code 210, 212 and 213 are unconstitutional and go against their charter section 7. Unanimous decision in favor of Bedford.
What happened in Zylberberg v. Sudbury Board of Education
Jewish and Muslim parents of students enrolled in schools of the Subury Board of Education, claimed that the daily reciting of the Lord’s prayer (provided under the education act) violated their and their children’s freedom of religion. Ruling- Defended students could ask to be exempt, and therefore it did not go against their rights. Regulation and section was found to violate section 2(a) and was struck down.
What happened in Blainey v. Ontario Hockey Association et al. ?
Blainey was a girl who was banned from playing hockey with a boys’ team. In her coach’s opinion, she had the ability to compete, but under regulation 250 of the OHA, only males were eligible to be members of the OHA. Justine’s mother filed a complaint using the OHRC saying she was discriminated against on the basis of sex. They won, as the legislation went against section 15 of the charter.
