Cases Flashcards
Roncarelli v. Duplessis
• Who
o Roncarelli owned a restaurant
o Premier Maurice Duplessis for province of Quebec
• Where: Montreal
• When: 1946
• What
o Provincial police arrested ~1000 Jehovah’s Witnesses who were distributing their periodical publication in the streets of Montreal and charged with distributing printed material without a license
o Roncarelli posted bail for 400, and Duplessis ordered Quebec liquor commission to cancel liquor license for his restaurant
o Roncarelli sued Duplessis, won at Superior court (award $25000), lost at appeal court, won at SCC (“gross abuse of legal power, dictated by arbitrariness”)
• Why (is this legally significant)
o Shows need and important for restraint of power
o How Rule of Law needs to be used in order to protect citizens from power
o Philip Selznick: theory for Need for Restraint of Power
• A country will have the best laws when there is an independent body or ranch of government (judiciary) that can challenge, review, and limit the laws made by ruling power
Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)
• Who
o Homer A. Plessy bought a train ticket for travel from New Orleans to Covington, Louisiana, 1/8 black – considered black in LA
o John H. Ferguson – judge of District Court of Orleans
• Where: New Orleans, USA
• When
o June 7, 1892 bought train ticket
o May 18, 1896 Supreme Court issued decision
• What
o Refused to move to white only section of railroad car, arrested and jailed
o Ferguson found Plessy guilty, conviction upheld by LA Supreme Court
o Plessy appealed to Supreme Court b/c violated 14th amendment right to equality
o SC found guilty because law merely made distinction between blacks and whites, but didn’t treat as inferiors because there were “separate but equal” accommodations
• Why (is this legally significant)
o Establishes and legalizes segregation
o Court endorses separate but equal doctrine
Brown v. Board of Education
• Who
o Linda Brown (parents)
• Where: Topeka, Kansas
• When: 1954 SC decision, took to court 3 years earlier
• What
o Parents wanted Brown to be able to attend white school four blocks from home, instead of walking 21 blocks to blacks school
o “Separate but equal” doctrine had no place in public education b/c “separate educational facilities are inherently unequal”
• Why (is this legally significant)
o Landmark decision, strike down Plessy -> segregation illegal in schools
o Decision applies to every public school across America
THURGOOD MARSHALL & NAACP – “Mr. Civil Rights”
• Won more SC cases than any lawyer in American history, set stage for civil rights movement of 1960’s
• First black SC court judge in 1967
• Success with Brown case laid legal framework to end segregation forever
• Legal Reasoning in Brown case
o Wanted to enforce 14th amendment, was fighting for separate but completely equal schools
o Theory was there would not be enough funding to provide equality for black students so they would be forced to integrate
R. v. Morgentaler
FACTS:
Who
• Dr. Henry Morgentaler believed illegal abortions were a serious problem and needed a deliberately illegal response
When
• Hearing Oct 7-10/1986, judgment 1988
• Started legal action 1967
Where
• Operated clinics in Montreal, Toronto, and Winnipeg
What
• Openly opened a private therapeutic abortion clinics and was prepared to challenge s.251 of the CCC when he would eventually be charged
CLI
• Whether or not s.251 of the CCC is constitutional
POSITION - Appellant
• S.251 is unconstitutional b/c it violates s.7 and s.15 of CCRF
LEGAL REASONING
• Purpose: preserve human life, ensure abortions only performed when absolutely necessary
• Effectiveness: not working, process to obtain was unfair and arbitrary, impairment was overbroad & outweighed laws objective
• Consequences: more women were harmed psychologically and physically form social & ethical consequences than would be from therapeutic abortions
REMEDY
• SCC ruled in favour of Morgentaler and struck down s.251
• “It is not just a medical decision, but a profound social and ethical one as well.” – Hon. Justice Bertha Wilson
Hall v. Powers
FACTS
Who
• Marc Hall, openly gay 17yr old HS senior, wanted to take bf JP to prom
• Mr. Powers – school principal
When
• 25 Feb. 2002 principal told Hall he could not bring his date b/c against Church’s teachings
• Prom was 10 May 2002
Where
• Monsignor John Pereyma Catholic Secondary School in Oshawa, ON
What
• School principal denied Marc Hall’s request to bring his same-sex partner to prom because it was contrary to the Church’s teachings
• Marc appealed to the school board, but they upheld Mr. Powers decision
• Marc brought legal proceedings against board, alleging he was being discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation (s.15 CCRF)
• Brought application for Interlocutory Injunction* because trial would not be held in time for prom
• Injunction was granted, and Marc attended prom w/ JP
Why
• The rights guaranteed in s.93 the Constitution Act 1867 (separate schools) does not mean that such schools are exempt from the CCRFs applications
Interlocutory Injunction
- Would restrain school authorities from preventing his attendance at prom with male date
o 1) Is there a serious issue to be tried?
• Yes – this is an issue of equality
• The school’s prohibition of Hall’s attendance with his gay partner, which could be found to violate his equality rights, is not justified under s.1 of the CCRF. There is no rational connection between the school’s regulation and a pressing and substantial objective.
o 2) Will the applicant suffer irreparable harm if an injunction is not granted?
• Yes – being excluded from an event with considerable cultural and social significance constitutes a serious and irreparable injury to Mr. Hall, and a serious affront to his human dignity
o 3) Whom does the balance of convenience favour?
• Roman Catholic dogma would not be changed by granting an injunction, no one would be required to adjust beliefs
• Mr. Hall only has one opportunity to attend prom, an opportunity that would be gone by the time of a trial
• Therefore B. of C. favors Marc Hall
R. v. Oakes (1986)
Who
• David Edwin Oakes was charged w/ possession of drugs, and possession with the intent to traffic
Where/When
• 1986
What
• s.8 of the Narcotics Control Act (NCA) places onus on accused to prove that there was no intent to traffic
• Oakes challenged this section as an infringement of his s.11 (d) CCRF rights, the right to be presumed innocent
• Court found it did violate 11d, and considered whether the government could justify this infringement under s.1
• Court found government failed to satisfy s.1 of CCRF, and therefore struck down s.8 of the NCA
Why
• Developed the Oakes Test, which determines whether s.1 can be used to reasonably limit a person’s Charter rights
R. v. N.S.
FACTS
Who
• N.S. brought a sexual assault case to court against her uncle and cousin for sexual abuse between ages 6-12
When
• 2007
Where
• SCC
What
• Defence asked NS to remove her Niqab to testify during preliminary hearing, she refused and judge called a Voir Dire (trial w/I a trial)
• Appealed to SCC for right to wear Niqab while testifying
Why
• Determined that the religious right to wear a Niqab while testifying does not infringe on defendant’s right to a fair trial
CLI
• Whether the religious right to wear a Niqab while testifying infringed on the defendant’s right to a fair trial
LEGAL ARGUMENTS
APPELLANT
• POS: does not infringe on s.7, and right to freedom of religion does not interfere with due process
• S.2 (a)(b) – freedom of religion is violated
• Court does not ask for any other religious accessories to be removed in order to testify
• Demeanor evidence (non-verbal -> sweating, nervousness) could be falsely interpreted by the court -> not reliable
• Chilling effect – everyone has equal opportunity in a court
• Gender based analysis, males have always dominated
• Must make a choice between freedom of expression and justice
• She would be re-victimized -> exposing herself again in front of accused
• CCRF 27 – right to multiculturalism
RESPONDENT
• Balance of probabilities – it will have irreparable harm on NS dignity
• BLIND lady justice
• S.7 does not trump s.2
• Demeanor evidence is the only evidence -> paramount importance
• Justice LaBelle said demeanor evidence is key
• Did not remove Niqab for drivers license photo or to cross border
• S.15 – not everyone in the courtroom is being treated equally
• Shows her responses, could change how they build the case
• Rights to religion are not absolute
• Temporary inconvenience for NS
R. v. Patrick
FACTS
Who
• Mr. P was suspected of operating an ecstasy lab inside his home
When
• 2009
Where
• SCC
What
• Police searched through Mr. P’s garbage 6 times
• Evidence gathered was used to obtain a search warrant
• Mr. P was then arrested and charged with trafficking narcotics
• Garbage on property edge, police did not step through, reached over
Why
• Court found that the police did not breach accused’s right from unreasonable search and seizure and that he abandoned his privacy interest when he placed his garbage for collection at the rear of his property where it was accessible to citizen
CLI
• Whether a warrantless search of garbage on residential property violates s.8 right in the CCRF?
LEGAL ARGUMENTS
APPELLANT
• Expectation of privacy
- Bag of garbage pertains to all personal living habits of a person
- Explicitly targeted - arbitrary
• Trespassing
- What is difference between reaching and stepping?
- Would be a chilling effect due to lack of privacy (i.e. hoarding)
• Presumption of innocence
- Police had a suspicion & no evidence that led them to believe he was guilty
• S.1 is not justified b/c it is not based on evidence
• Could have taken less intrusive steps
• Garbage is anonymous in sorting facilities
RESPONDENT
• Abandonment – no expectation to recollect garbage
• Location – available to any person/animal walking by
• No expectation of privacy
• Sorting facilities – individuals separate garbage for proper disposal
• S.8 is overbroad – multiple aspects to privacy
• S.1 should not save – not unreasonable considering greater good of society
• R. v. Stillman
- Last person seen w/ victim – used dirty tissue to link to crime
• R. v. Louis
- 3 men broke into house
- Louis enabled by telling them where the money was
R. v. Insite
FACTS
Who
• Insite is a supervised drug injection facility where drug addicts can go to get help (opened 2003)
o Always someone to talk to and will administer drugs, but encourage detox
When
• 2008 – Fed. Minister of Health took away exemption
Where
• East Side of Vancouver, BC
What
• Were granted an exemption by the Minister of Health for S.56 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, which gives the power to centers like Insite to otherwise illegal drugs
Why
• Allowing Insite to operate could lead to decriminalizing drugs and distributing drug paraphernalia on a national scale
CLI
• Whether or not the Minister of Health should grant the exemption for Insite to administer drug paraphernalia under the CDSA Sections 4(1) and 5(1)
LEGAL ARGUMENTS
APPELLANT
• Equality
• Addiction: a condition of dependency on a substance, person, or thing
• Allows patients equal access to help to start recovering from addictions
• Help change lifestyle: reducing HIV from clean needles + give homes
• Creating family + filling hole inside addicts, keeps off streets
• Treat people like humans, not objects
• Economic benefits – less people dying
• Infringe on s.7 rights
RESPONDENT
• Higher death and HIV rates
• Using taxpayer $, lots of money, little benefit
• Insite Rep: “Supervised, not safe”
• Purpose of CDSA is to prevent dug trafficking and protect community
• Is working b/c preventing citizens from doing drugs
• Other consequences:
- Appell: not infringing on s.7 because drugs are not a right
- Denying potentially life-saving medical-care -> not lifesaving
• ~$3Mil. To operate/year
• 2012 – 497 overdoses
• Of 400,000 people that visited, only 300 sent for other care
• Crime rate around Insite increased
• Model is producing worse effects
R. v. Latimer
FACTS
Who
• Robert Latimer was convicted for death of 12yr quadriplegic daughter Tracy
• Tracy Latimer had birth issues -> cerebral-palsy, constant pain, not terminally ill, mental capacity of 3 month old
When
• Oct 24, 1993
• 1997 decision, 2001 SCC decision
Where
• Saskatchewan, AB
• SCC
What
• Murdered Tracy by putting her in car and running hose form exhaust pipe (CO2 poisoning)
Why
• Issue is whether Robert Latimer should have to serve a minimum sentence of 10 years before eligible for parole (mand. Min. for Muder2)
• Orig. trial 1 yr. house arrest, on appeal 10 yr. sentence enforced
CLI
• Whether mandatory minimum sentences are constitutional?
LEGAL ARGUMENTS
APPELLANT
• Cruel + unusual punishment
• S.12 is not a reasonable limit to s.1
• First time offender
• Not always proportionate to crime, overbroad
• Denied due process, should have been considered for defence of necessity (was his only option)
• No violent intentions, not reasonable correspondence to minimum sentencing
• Not danger to society
• Minimum sentencing is overbroad + overreaching, not minimal impairment
RESPONDENT
• Nobody has the right to take one’s life
• Had the mens rea + actus reus (was pre-mediated)
• Originally lied said she died in sleep
• Man. Min. sentencing is not a breach of s.12
• Court must weigh gravity of offence
• Other alternatives – hip surgery
• Limited quality of life – was cheerful
• RL said “sadder the day she was born than the day she died”, showed no remorse
• Would set a precedent
• Needed medical treatment + palliative care
• See: Gravier case, R. v. Morisy
