Chapter 4 - Property Rights and the Charter Flashcards
This protection in the Charter impacted the rights of private property owners
The right to Assembly
The Ruling of Committee for the Commonwealth of Canada v Canada demonstrates
That protests are permissible on private/state property to the extent that that area is ordinarily accessible to the public
What differentiates state property from common property?
The state creates and reserves the right to exclude others from the property (ex. a state park with a gate on it that is locked at night)
The activity of panhandling on private/state property is not under Charter protection because…
It is regarded as an economic activity, not one of protest. Economic actives in this regard are not protected by the Charter
Common property is owned by…
The society that makes up the state, not the state itself
What is a Trade Mark?
A mark that an economic actor uses to identify themselves or their wares
Copyright law is based upon this branch of law
Statutory law, not common nor tort law
Who is responsible for upholding the rights of property owners?
The Legislatures of Canada
Why did Manitoba Fisheries v The Queen award compensation?
Because there was a finding of GOODWILL (a property interest in the fish, not merely an economic interest)
What was the ratio of Committee of the Commonwealth of Canada v Canada?
Some, but not all government property is constitutionally open for protest. Does not address private property owner’s rights to exclude protesters.
The case of Batty v Toronto regarded the city as ___ was significant to the ruling of the case because…
it relied upon a “government as owner” analogy which allowed the court to assert that common property does not confer absolute right over some people
The case of Vancover v Adams is distinguishable from Batty v Toronto because…
Vancouver did not have adequate homeless shelters, so it constituted a violation of Charter sec2, thus, the government was obliged to allow the homeless to shelter out on the street
Is Parody considered “fair dealing” under the Copyright act?
Yes, although in CAW v Michelin, parody was not considered criticism unless there was analysis involved.
The ratio of Manitoba Fisheries v The Queen was…
When there is a taking of a property interest, “Unless the words of the statute clearly so demand, a statute is not to be construed so as to take away the property of a subject without compensation”
Is the ruling of Manitoba Fisheries closely followed by the court?
No. Most courts will not find compensation to be warranted unless the government takes the land, or a property interest outright
