Exam Flashcards
1
Q
Rodriguez v. British Columbia
A
- Summary of case
Mrs. Rodriguez was a mother, and she was sick and wanted to assist help with her death, and her case had met with the Supreme Court of Canada and her case was denied
Issue - Is the charter allowed to deny the right to freedom, and if so does that break other rules about assisting suicide?
Verdict - Was denied, although sorry, it does not uphold fundamental justice
2
Q
Carter v. Canada
A
- Summary of case Prior to the case, euthanasia was not allowed In this case, Mr. Carter was suffering from a disease that was slowly killing him, and he wanted to die with dignity, and wanted assistance with suicide, but at the time it was not allowed, He and his family challenged the court saying that t the Criminal Code provisions violated the rights set out in sections 7 and 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Issue the Criminal Code, which prohibits physician-assisted dying, infringes upon the right to life, liberty, and security of the person, as guaranteed under s. 7 of the Charter?
- Verdict The case was struck down saying that the Criminal Code prohibited assisted suicide, holding that ss.
- 14 and 241(b) of the Criminal Code was overbroad because it is not justified in s. 7 of the charter
3
Q
Towne Cinema Theatres ltd. v. The Queen
A
Appellant charged of playing inappropriate movie
Significance ; judge used personal standards not community’s standard
Movie was approved and rated adult
Appeal allowed, new trial
4
Q
R. v. Lavallee
A
- Summary of case
A woman that was in an abused relationship had killed her partner by stabbing him in the back
She was acquitted the first time, but not the second
Went to SCOA - Issue
Whether she had any other choice than killing him or did she have other options - Verdict
The Supreme court went with the first statement which was she was acquitted because she had no other choice
5
Q
R. v. Vaillancourt
A
- Summary of case
The appellant had tried to rob a place with a partner, the appellant said no weapon beforehand, but later his partner pull up with a gun
The appellant takes the guns from the guy, and goes do their heist, and the appellant hears a gunshot and sees that his partner had shot a person with a bullet from the gun that he did not know about, and killed the person - Issue
The appellant said he should not be charged with murder because he did not pull the trigger - Verdict
The first trial-not guilty of murder
Second trail-guilty
Like it or not, he still was about of the crime and had mens rea and actus rues to commit the crime
6
Q
R. v. Powley
A
- R. v. Powley was a legal case concerning Métis hunting rights in Canada.
- In 1993, the province of Ontario charged Steve and Roddy Powley with illegal hunting.
- The case concluded in 2003, when the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the Powleys were, in fact, exercising lawful Métis hunting rights.
- The Powley case established criteria on who can legally qualify for Métis rights.
- Some legal experts believe the Powley case might lead to expanded Métis rights, including harvesting and fishing rights and possibly self-government.
7
Q
Vriend v. Alberta
A
- Delwin Vriend was employed as a laboratory coordinator at a Christian college in Edmonton, Alberta.
- He had received positive evaluations, salary increases and promotions for his work performance.
- In January 1991, Mr. Vriend was fired by the college.
- The only reason given by the college was that he did not comply with its policy on homosexual practice: Mr. Vriend was fired because the college had become aware that he was a gay man.
- Went from The Court of Queen’s Bench in Alberta, to The Alberta Court of Appeal, finally to The Supreme Court of Canada The trial judge found that the omission of protection against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation was an unjustified violation of s. 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms .
8
Q
R. v. Keegstra
A
- Mr. Keegstra had been teaching his students racially prejudiced material targeting Jewish people.
- He also told his students that Jewish people “created the Holocaust to gain sympathy”.
- A few months after the complaint, Mr. Keegstra was dismissed.
- was charged under section 319(2) of the Criminal Code with wilfully promoting hatred against an identifiable group by communicating anti-semitic statements to his students.
- At Mr. Keegstra’s trial, his lawyer argued that s. 319(2) of the Criminal Code violated Mr. Keegstra’s right to freedom of expression.
- The wilful promotion of hatred against an identifiable group would violate that person’s equality rights (s. 15 of the Charter). On this basis, the trial judge held that s. 319(2) did not infringe. 2(b) of the Charter and the jury convicted Mr. Keegstra of wilful promotion of hatred.
The Crown appealed the Court of Appeal’s decision to the Supreme Court of Canada. - Does the law minimally impair the infringed rights
9
Q
R. v. Oakes
A
- The Oakes Test originated from the case of R. v. Oakes [1986] In London, Ont.
- he was pulled over and found to have 8 vials of hash oil and over $600 cash Claimed the hash was meant for pain relief and the cash was from a worker’s compensation cheque that he just cashed David Oakes was charged with possession of a narcotic for the purpose of trafficking Under sec.
- 8 of the Narcotic Control Act (a gov’t law), all the Crown how had to do was prove that Oakes had in possession drugs… and then the responsibility was shifted (called reverse onus) to Oakes to prove that he did not have the narcotic for the purpose of trafficking Oakes argued that this shift in responsibility (reverse onus) violated his right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty (section 11(d) of the Charter).
- The SCC held that s. 8 of the Narcotic Control Act was unconstitutional and violated the rights of the accused.
- This violation of David Oakes’ rights was not justified.
10
Q
R. v. Butler
A
- Man charged with having too much obscene material at a hard-core video shop in Manitoba.
- In this case, the Court had to balance the right to freedom of expression under section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms with women’s rights.
- Accordingly, Butler was convicted of 8 counts relating to distribution of 8 films, but was acquitted on remaining charges.
- The Manitoba Court of Appeal disagreed with the trial judge, and found that the materials were not protected under s. 2(b) because they contained undue exploitation of sex and degradation of human sexuality.
- The Supreme Court held that the Criminal Code provision violated s. 2(b) of the Charter, but that the infringement was justified under s. 1.
11
Q
United States v. Burns
A
Glen Sebastian Burns and Atif Rafay were Canadian citizens who were both 18 years old when Rafay’s mom, dad and sister were found murdered in their home in Washington in 1994 They both admitted to be at Rafay’s families house during the night of the murder and were both arrested in British Columbia in 1995 The United States began extradition proceedings and the Minister of Justice for Canada considered their ages, nationalities, the nature of the alleged crime and the structure of the US judicial system and he ordered their extradition without seeking assurance that the death penalty wouldn’t be imposed The British Columbia court of appeal thought this would be a violation of their mobility rights of the respondents under section 6 (1) of the charter and said that the minister of justice needs to seek assurance that the death penalty would not be used
12
Q
R. v. DAI
A
- 26 year old with the intellectual development of a 3-6 year old.
- KB was allegedly assaulted repeatedly over a four year period by D.A.I.
- D.A.I. was her mother’s partner
- Issue the Judge had with KB testifying was he felt KB didn’t know the difference between truth/lies.
- Supreme court of Canada are siding with KB
13
Q
Khadr v. Canada
A
- In 2002, Omar Khadr, a canadian citizen was captured by US forces in Afghanistan and transferred to Guantanamo Bay detention camp in Cuba He was suspected of being involved with terrorist activities and alleged to have killed an American soldier He was only 15 at the time which means he was under the protection of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child Since he was captured, no one respected his rights under the convention and he was tortured during his time at the camp.
And despite his requests for Canada to bring him back they didn’t get involved. - Other countries were successful in bringing people back from this camp In 2008 the supreme court of Canada said that the United States had violated his rights under the charter and the Canadian government shared the blame for these violations because Canadian officials had participated in an interrogation process that denied him a right to a fair trial In 2010, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) again recognized serious breaches of international law, international human rights law, and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Khadr’s case, but fell short of ordering that Khadr be returned to Canada In 2010, the US Military Commission finally brought Khadr to trial.
- In 2011, he applied to come back to Canada to serve the rest of his sentence.
- On September 29th, 2012, Khadr was repatriated to Canada to serve the remainder of his sentence in Canadian custody.
14
Q
The United States v. Meng
A
- Meng was arrested in Vancouver because she was indicted on bank and wire fraud charges for allegedly misleading HSBC (HSBA.
- L) in 2013 about the telecommunications equipment giant’s business dealings in Iran Mengs has a connection with Canada because she has two houses in Vancouver with her husband and was once a permanent resident This case caused many problems between Canada, the US, and China because China didn’t agree with her arrest and detained two Canadian citizens and accused them of espionage What we need to know from this case: Canada did agree to extradite her to execution People thought it was wrong that Canada got involved with this case This case was based on politics and not in terms of justice, and people thought it was wrong that it wasn’t following the usual protocols.
- It should have been the judges decision and it should have followed the proper protocols.
- How the US can basically get Canada to do their dirty work (which is what happened in this case)
15
Q
Suresh v. Canada
A
- Manickavasagam Suresh is categorized as a convention refugee from Sri Lanka because he arrived in Canada in 1990 and was granted refugee status in 1991, then in 1995 he applied for landed immigrant status Canadian government detained him and started deportation proceedings because they thought he posed as a security threat The Canadian Security Intelligence Service has reasons to believe that he was apart of the Tamil Tigers which is a group that is allegedly engaged in terrorist activities in Sri Lanka.
- Members of the Tamil Tigers are subject to torture by the police in Sri Lanka The appellant argued that if he was deported that would be a violation of his rights under section 7 of the Canadian Charter or Rights and Freedoms because section 7 ensures the “right to life, liberty and security They decided that he did deserve a new deportation trial because he has met the threshold (there is risk of torture if he were deported)
16
Q
Murdock v. Richards
A
- Teacher wanted to use corporal punishment on a student but when they pulled them to the front of the room the student hit their head
- No permanent or serious injury happened to the student
They questioned whether the punishment was reasonable or excessive
Significance:
* The Canadian Teacher’s Foundation used this case in order for s. 43 to change
* S. 43 doesn’t allow teachers to use corporal punishment anymore. They are allowed to use limited force in order to stop their students from having a violent outburst
* It also changed what parents are allowed to do; spanking is allowed between the ages 2-12, you can’t hit out of frustration and anger, and using objects is not allowed. Nor is hitting their head
17
Q
Tsilhqot’in Nation v. British Columbia
A
- Aboriginal Land Problem: Case demonstrates protection of land In British Columbia, the province granted a commercial logging license on land considered by the Tsilhqot’in to be part of their traditional territory, in order to prevent this, Tsilhqot’in made a claim for Aboriginal title (which gave them rights to their traditional land) In order to prove this they need to show that the land was under the group’s control before it was claimed as new territory of a colonial state The supreme court of canada determined they could establish this claim by showing regular and exclusive use of sites or territory within the claim area.
- The BC Court Appeal made a narrower test to prove sufficient occupation for title to land They decided to allow the appeal and granted a declaration of Aboriginal title over the area requested Tsilhqot’in actively worked to keep others from occupying the land they considered to be their own and demanded permission from outsiders who wished to use the land The land cannot be developed or misused in a way that would substantially deprive future generations of the benefit of the land.
- The SSC found that the province failed to consult the Tsilhqot’in or accommodate their interests in issuing commercial licenses affecting the land
18
Q
M. v. H
A
- M. and H. were women living together in a same-sex relationship that continued for at least 5 years.
- M. and H.’s relationship deteriorated, and H. presented M. with a draft agreement to settle their affairs.
- M. encountered serious financial problems, and in 1992 sought an order for partition and sale of the house, a share of the business, and a claim for support under the Family Law Act (FLA).
- Spousal support is available to opposite-sex members of unmarried couples who have had a minimum three year cohabitation and parenthood so long as the relationship is conjugal in nature.
- This case is useful in comparing Canada’s analysis of constitutional equal protection challenges to such analysis under American law.
19
Q
R. v. Parks
A
- Early in the morning, the respondent attacked his parents-in-law, killing his mother-in-law with a kitchen knife and seriously injuring his father-in-law.
- This occurred in the home of his parents-in-law, while they were both in bed asleep.
- At trial, the respondent presented a defence of automatism, stating that at the time the incidents took place he was sleepwalking.
- Respondent was charged with first-degree murder of the mother-in-law and the attempted murder of the father-in-law.
- TJ put the defence of automatism to the jury, which acquitted on this basis.
20
Q
Philippines v. China
A
- The Philippines filed a complaint in 2013 after China took control of a reef about 140 miles from the Philippine coast.
- It accused China of violating international law by interfering with fishing, endangering ships and failing to protect the marine environment at the reef, known as Scarborough Shoal.
- The Philippines filed its complaint under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which lays out rules for the use of the world’s oceans.
- The treaty came into force in 1994 and has been ratified by both China and the Philippines, as well as 165 other states and the European Union.
- In addition to China and the Philippines, four states — Brunei, Malaysia, Taiwan and Vietnam — claim parts of the South China Sea, and China’s nine-dash line overlaps with the “exclusive economic zone” of a fifth country, Indonesia.
21
Q
Australia v. Japan
A
- Australia, with New Zealand intervening as a non-party, asked the ICJ to adjudge and declare Japan in violation of its obligations under the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling and other international agreements in the authorization and implementation of whaling “special permits” in the Southern Ocean.
- Regarding the application of Article VIII, paragraph 1, the Court noted that JARPA II could broadly be characterized as “scientific research”.
- However, it considered that the evidence before it did not establish that the programme’s design and implementation were reasonable in relation to achieving its stated objectives.
- The Court concluded that the special permits granted by Japan for the killing, taking and treating of whales in connection with JARPA II were not “for purposes of scientific research”, pursuant to Article VIII, paragraph 1, of the 1946 Convention.
22
Q
Reference Ng Extradition (Charles Ng case)
A
- Arrested in Calgary for shoplifting attempt where a guard was shot
- Discovered that and was wanted for the torture and murder of 12 people in California
- Judge allowed United States application for his extradition
- Potential escape to Canada should not be overlooked
- Canada is would become a safe haven for murder suspects
23
Q
Classifying the Law:
A
**Law-
Interinal Law- **
**Domestic law- **Substanvice , Producal
**Substanive- **Private, Public
Private- Tort, Family, Contract, WIll and Esate, protey, and Employment
Public- Criminal, Adminsitrative, Constitutional
