FINAL

Question 1

(1.1) What is the law

Answer 1

Law: Publicly prescribed rules, failing which we suffer some adverse consequence.

Question 2

(1.1) Law are rules to obey but are more then that…

Answer 2

• a reflection of common societal values
• process by which disputes are resolved
• a moving target
  Laws develop all the time and are always responding to new situations

Question 3

(1.2) Sources of Law

Answer 3

i) Statues - broadly acceptable rules passed by legislatures.

ii) Regulations - Detailed rules defining, refining, applying statutory statements

Common Law Case Law - rules laid down by the courts.

Constitutional Law

Question 4

(1.2) What are Regulations

Answer 4

II) Regulations - detailed rules are refining, applying, or further describing broad statutory statements.
- Passed by Governor-in-Council

Question 5

(1.2) What are the four sources of Law?

Answer 5

I) Statutes
II) Regulations
III) Common/Case Law
IV) Constitutional Law

Question 6

(1.2) What are Statutes

Answer 6

I) Statutes - broadly acceptable rules passed as legislatures

Question 7

1.2) What is Common/Case Law

Answer 7

III) Common Law/Case Law
- ‘Rules’ laid down by courts
- Based on decisions resolving particular Disputes
- Each decision determines the law as it applies to that dispute and (in theory) helps determine the law applicable to other similar matters

Question 8

IV) What is Constitutional Law

Answer 8

Supreme Law of country, to which all other laws must conform
Very broad statements of general principles that the courts give concrete application.

Question 9

1.2) What is Stare Decisis

Answer 9

Like cases should be decided alike

Question 10

1.3) What are the types of Lawmakers

Answer 10

i) Federal Parliament
ii) Provincial Legislatures
iii) Municipal Councils
iv) Indigenous Governments
v) judges (appointed in Canada)

Question 11

1.3) Federal and Provincial governements can make laws to matters __________ to it. This is determined by the ____________ act.

Answer 11

Assigned.
Constitution.

Question 12

1.3) ___________ = (makes) Common/Case Law

Answer 12

Judges

Question 13

1.3) Judges have a duty to be _____________ and ___________ as possible

Answer 13

Independent. Impartial.

Question 14

1.3) T/F. Judges are “APPOINTED”

Answer 14

TRUE.

Question 15

1.4) State the Divisions of Law:

Answer 15

I) Priviate/Civil (Torts, Contracts)
II) Public/Criminal (Criminal, Constitutional
III) Substantive
IV) Procedural

Question 16

1.4) ___________ law addresses the rights people have _________ law addresses how these rights can be exercised.

Answer 16

Substantive.
Procedural.

Question 17

1.4) What are torts

Answer 17

Wrongs against one individual by another.

Question 17

1.4) Nuisance and Negligence are some examples of _____

Answer 17

Torts.

Question 18

________ law can also refer to Quebec’s ________ law system based on the ________ code for PRIVATE matters in Quebec.

Answer 18

Civil.
Civil.
Civil.

Question 19

(1.4) ________ law is of private concern (torts, etc.) ________ law is of public concern

Answer 19

Civil. Criminal.

Question 20

1.4) What governs private law in Quebec?

Answer 20

The Civil Code.

Question 21

1.4) The _______ ________ governs private law only in Quebec. (HINT: it is a big, thick, book).

Answer 21

Civil Code

Question 22

1.5) What are the two Principles of Stare Decisis

Answer 22

i. Lower courts follow higher courts
ii. Cases are decided alike.

Question 23

1.5) Courts operate in a ___________ system.

Answer 23

Hierarchical.

Question 24

1.5) __________ courts are responsible for finding the proper facts of the case.

Answer 24

Trial.

Question 25

1.5) ________ courts have the function of determining whether the _________ court applied the correct law.

Answer 25

Appeal. Trial.

Question 26

1.5) If the appeal court found that the correct law WAS NOT applied, what will they do to the trial courts decision.

Answer 26

They will apply the correct law and apply whatever decision is appropriate.

Question 27

1.5) If the appeal court found that the correct law WAS applied, what will they do to the trial courts decision.

Answer 27

Uphold the decision.

Question 28

1.5) State the Ontario Court System Acronyms - ONT. C.J, ONT. S.C.J, C.A, S.C.C

Answer 28

Ontario Court of Justice Ontario Superior Court of Justice Court of Appeal Supreme Court of Canada

Question 29

1.5) Reorder Following Courts from Lowest to Highest - ONT S.C.J, S.C.C, ONT. C.J, C.A

Answer 29

LOWEST -> Ontario Court of Justice, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Court of Appeal, Supreme Court of Canada -> Highest.

Question 30

1.5) T/F) Canada court system is a inquistorial system.

Answer 30

False. Canada court system would be considered an adversial system

Question 31

Consider the following scenario. You are the Defendant. The Ontario Court of Justice rules in your favour. However, your case is appealed. The Ontario Court of Appeal Finds that the law was applied incorrectly in finding a verdict and rules against yourself. What happens to your case?

Answer 31

The higher decision overrides any decision in the lower courts. Therefore, (given your case does not go to the Supreme Court of Canada), you LOSE the case.

Question 32

1.5) The _________ system is when the judge actively seeks out what actually happened. The ___________ system is when the judge plays much more passive role (parties examines and cross-examines witnesses). Judge makes decision based on evidence presented by the parties.

Answer 32

Inqusitorial Sytem Adversial

Question 33

1.5) Canada's court system would be considered an ____________ system

Answer 33

adversial

Question 34

1.5) When does the adversarial system not work as ideally as desired

Answer 34

when there is inequality in power between the parties

Question 35

1.5) In adversarial court system assumes what about evidence?

Answer 35

Evidence adduced by parities is presumed to be best available (as they are trying to advance their cause) If parties are interested in gathering evidence, we trust they will provide the best and most relevant evidence.

Question 36

1.6) Consider the following case annotation Smith v. Jones. Who is the plaintiff and who is the defendant.

Answer 36

Smith is the plaintiff. Jones is the defendant.

Question 37

1.6) Consider the following case annotation "R. v Jones". What does R represent and what does Jones represent?

Answer 37

R - represents the Crown "R" = Regina (Queen)/Rex(King) Jones = the accused.

Question 38

1.6) What is the issue in the Re. Ontario Mushroom Co. Ltd. et al.

Answer 38

Is a mushroom a vegetable. Does the legislation apply to mushroom growers?

Question 39

1.6) What did the courts decide in Re. Ontario Mushroom Co. Ltd. et al.

Answer 39

The Court decided that in the culinary sense, a mushroom is a vegetable which is mostly why the Court decided that a mushroom is a vegetable.

Question 40

1.6) What was the main issue for Re. Ontario Mushroom Co. Ltd. et al.

Answer 40

Whether mushroom farmers were entitled to the same benefits as other vegetable farmers. - Workers thought yes - People against paying farmers thought NO.

Question 41

What is Statutory interpretation?

Answer 41

Courts determine the meaning and applicability of statutory terms.

Question 42

1.6) T/F Ontario Court of Justice MUST follow decisions of ONTARIO Court of Appeal

Answer 42

TRUE.

Question 43

1.6) T/F 1.6) T/F Ontario Court of Justice MUST follow decisions of MANITOBA Court of Appeal

Answer 43

False

Question 43

1.6) What is the difference between Ratio (decidndi) and Obiter (dicta)?

Answer 43

Ratio IS binding. Obiter IS NOT binding.

Question 44

Decisions of higher courts in other provinces can be __________ (Used by lawyers to persuade the judge to decide a case)

Answer 44

Pervasive.

Question 45

1.6) _______ ________ are things said along the way. It is ____________ but not __________

Answer 45

Obiter Dict. Persuasive. Binding.

Question 46

1.6) A case ONLY has __________ authority for what? This is called ______ _________

Answer 46

BINDING. The legal principles that the case was decided. Ratio Decidendi

Question 47

1.6) Define where in the quote is RATIO and what is OBITER Zamparo v Brisson (ONCA): "This is sufficient to dispose of the appeal. However, since my colleague has gone on to support the learned trial Judge on the alternate ground on which he found Dr. Brison liable for the plaintiff's injury. I feel impelled to make a few brief observations on that issue also"

Answer 47

OBITER - everything in this quote RATIO - what preceded this quote

Question 48

A court only bounding to follow PRECEDENT if:

Answer 48

I) It deals with the same issue II) Facts are sufficiently similar, with no new material facts.

Question 49

Why was the verdict of the case of R v. Mara different from R v. Tremblay

Answer 49

Similar issue. But not SUFFICIENTLY similar.

Question 50

Precedent must be followed when the material facts of the case are _________ similar.

Answer 50

SUFFICIENTLY.

Question 51

1.6) Why was R v Mara, and R v Tremblay NOT sufficiently similar.

Answer 51

The physical contact and public nature of Mara with the strip dances. Verdict - Indecent - Therefore Guilty. The private nature and non-physical contact with Tremblay and strip dances. Verdict - Not Indecent - Not guilty. Not sufficiently similar. Material facts differ.

Question 52

1.6) What court has the power to change their previous decision

Answer 52

Supreme Court of Canada

Question 53

1.6) Why does the Supreme Court of Canada rarely Undermine their decisions.

Answer 53

Does not like undermining the certainty of the law.

Question 54

Reading Cases. What does Common Law mean? What does Civil Law Mean?

Answer 54

Common law means consistency across a geographical area instaed of fragmented. Civil Law -> Codified statute Code.

Question 55

What is the difference between common versuse statute law?

Answer 55

Common law is based on previous judicial decisions (Stare Decisis) Statutory law is created by legislatures.

Question 56

___________ ____is based on previous judicial decisions (Stare Decisis). __________ _____ is created by legislatures

Answer 56

Common Law. Statutory Law.

Question 57

What are TEN tips about reading Cases?

Answer 57

1. Read with a legal dictionary (a normal dictionary) 2. Identify where the decisions fit in court structure - Supreme Court of Canada - Provincial Appeal Courts - Courts of First Instances 3. Identify Chronology which hase led to the decisions - related to court structure but also litigation chronology - has case been decided by one or more previous courts 4. Get the parties straight - Claim / applicant/ plaintiff - respondent defendat appeliant / cross ppealieant moving party 5. Identify judges and the way they contribute - single judegement - dissenting judgement (not all judges agree of decision) - sometimes Supreme Court Decides with dissenting majority. - concurring judgment 6. Be alert to the reputation and career of the judge. - pro-victim, pro-accused, unorthodox - promotion from lower to higher court or to Chief Justice - Use of "(as she then was)" 7. Read the case more then once in different ways. - Hard to absorb everything at once so try to answer the basic questions first on brief review. 8. Sort out factual disputes and identify key facts - managemeable and memorable 9. Identify legal issues and result 10. Be critical of what you are reading - do no simply accept what is written as correct.

Question 58

2.1) What is natural law

Answer 58

Objective moral principles discerned by natural reason.

Question 59

2.1) What is Legal Postitivism

Answer 59

What the ruler says. Whatever they say goes. Ex. Trumpist or Putinist. - Criticism - what if the ruler is not a good ruler.

Question 60

2.1) What is Legal Realism

Answer 60

The idea whatever the courts enforce (de facto law)

Question 61

2.1) Fill in the following statement using the word "RULES" or "LAWS": ALL ____ are _______ but not all _______ are _______

Answer 61

Laws. Rules. Rules. Laws.

Question 62

(2.1) Constitutional Law is conerned with

Answer 62

Rules governing the use of governmental power.

Question 63

(2.1) Constitution law is part of ______ law. It ________ the values that a country regards as important.

Answer 63

public. reflects.

Question 64

2.1) What is one of the most important purposes of Constitutional law.

Answer 64

Limited Government. Limits power of the states.

Question 65

2.1) What is the "Ideal" of the RULE OF LAW

Answer 65

Laws are there to LIMIT the power of individuals. (People do not fall prey to their own passions due to rule of law).

Question 66

2.1) What were the Eight Principles of the Rule of Law According to John Finnis (IMPORTANT***)

Answer 66

I.) Laws must be PROSPECTIVE (applying for the future), not retrospective (applying to the pass 2.) Citizens MUST BE ABLE TO COMPLY the law (can’t have impossible expectations) 3.) Laws MUST BE AVAILABLE 4.) Laws MUST BE CLEARLY STATED (can’t be vague) (but there is an expectation that people are aware of the law). 5.) Laws MUST BE COHERENT (under different levels of jurisdiction) 6.) Must be SUFFICIENTLY STABLE so people can lead stable lives (examples of instability – cannabis 7.) Making of orders that are applicable to limited situations must be guided by relatively general, clear, and stable rules.*** 8.) People making laws must be i) ACCOUNTABLE for making those laws and ii) ADMINISTER his laws consistently. (i.e., that’s where Trump gets in trouble, he sometimes thinks he is above the law).

Question 67

MODULE 2: CASE: RANCARELLI v. DUPLESSIS. Describe the Case: (IMPORTANT***)

Answer 67

Plaintiff: Rancarelli - Jehovah's witness (odds with Catholic Church); he has bailed other Jehovah’s witness out of jail (were in jail for spreading papers) Defendant: Duplessis: PREMIER of Quebec was not pleased with Roncarelli Case Facts: Mr. Ronacerlli owned a Restaurant in Montreal (Operated since 1912) - Jehovah's Witness. - Provided bail for other Jehovah's witnesses. - Jehovah's Witnesses were distributing religious tracts on streets which were viewed as seditious to Quebec's Roman Catholic Population - Led to Violent protests. Roncarelli wanted the liquor license renewed, but he was rejected (by Quebec's Liquor Comission) The Quebec Liquor Comission has authority to revoke licenses BUT assuming "that the decision is to be based upon a weighing of considerations PERTINENT to the object of the administration". - Underlines DISCRETION and GOOD FAITH. Rancerelli Rejected: and was noted he’d never get a liquor license again. Rancerelli: claimed QLC did not revoke it for any other reason other than Duplessis didn’t want Roncarelli to have a license (against public order). Ruling: Rancerelli Won the Case. Reason: To deny or revoke a permit because a citizen exercises an unchallengable right totally irrelevant to the sale of liquor in a restaurant is equally beyond the scope of the discretion conferred. Authoirty for action, but discretion not exercised appropriately --> OFFENDS RULE OF LAW <--- ***Note difficult, if not impossible to demonstrate. (in this case, this was admitted)

Question 68

MODULE 2 CASE: FACTS: RE Manitoba Language Rights (***IMPORTANT)

Answer 68

RE: reference - when a case is brought to the government because they don't want to WAIT for someone to bring this dispute to court. - Done when the government wants the courts (judicial systems) verdict on a specified issue. Manitoba Act, 1870: - A person can use French or English in the House, courts, and Acts of Legislature (can be) printed and published in both languages. (As Consistent with what was outlined in the Constitution Act, 1967) The Official Language Act, 1890 English becomes the official provincial language. - The province stopped publishing in French. - this act was challenged and ruled Ultra Vires - NOT WITHIN BOUNDS of the law. Unconstitutional. ***Constitution is Supreme Law in the Country*** RULING: 1. Are provisions mandatory? YES. - Must be published in both languages. - as per Constitutional act (s.123) 1867 - as per Manitoba act (s.23) 1870 2. Are statutes/regulations invalid? YES... (however) temporarily valid. 3. Are they of any legal force or effect? NO... but legal vacuum = Chaos. Essentially since, the official language act (1890) was unconstitutional, it was invalid. Thus all laws published in English under the purview of the act were invalidated. However, the courts deemed these acts temporarily valid until updated laws published in both languages were written. This was to prevent a legal vacuum in the provincial judical system.

Question 69

M.2) What are the two takeaways of the rule of law

Answer 69

1. Law is supreme over government and private individuals 2. Rule of law requires creation and maintenance of an actual order of positive laws which preserve and embody the more general principle of normative order.

Question 70

2.3) ___________ law is concerned with the rules governing the use of ____________ _________ (Public Law)

Answer 70

Constitutional. Government Power.

Question 71

2.3) T/F: Constitutions can be Written or Unwritten, and Flexible or Rigid.

Answer 71

TRUE.

Question 72

M.2) The State is Regulated By (three things C.C.L)

Answer 72

Customs Conventions Laws

Question 73

2.3) (C.C.L) Customs are

Answer 73

responsible government and political parties

Question 74

2.3) (C.C.L) Conventions are

Answer 74

Dissolution of Parliament, Prime Minister, Cabinet etc.

Question 75

2.3) (C.C.L) Laws refer to

Answer 75

25Primary Documents Case Law

Question 76

Define Constitutionalism in 6 concepts

Answer 76

Expression of nations' value Democratically elected representatives Division of powers Self government Revolution

Question 77

2.4) Pre-Confederation Canada can be Characterized by

Answer 77

Small Population Population Scattered over a great distance No modern technology Division in language, economics, religion, law, and education The population largely cut off from the home country

Question 78

2.4) Canadian Colonies were divided into three major groups (who were these)

Answer 78

French (Catholics) English (Protestants/Anglican) Indigenous Peoples

Question 79

2.4) What were some major concerns that causes the colonies to unite

Answer 79

The United States. The French (concern of British)

Question 80

T/F: The Confederate Union was the British's idea.

Answer 80

False. It was their own idea (the colonies)

Question 81

What parliment passed the British North America Act (Hint - implied)

Answer 81

British

Question 82

T/F: The CONSTITUTION was the British's Idea

Answer 82

False. It was entirely made by the Colonies.

Question 83

When Did Each Province Join The Canadian Confederation

Answer 83

1870 - Manitoba, NWT 1871: BC 1873: PEI 1880: Arctic Islands 1898: Yukon Territories 1905: Alberta and Saskatchewan 1949: Newfoundland and Labrador 1999: Nunavut (no new land - NWT divided into two territories)

Question 84

When was the Statute of Westminister written and what did it establish.

Answer 84

1931. Britain can no longer vote on Canadian Laws.

Question 85

The ______________ happened in 1982. __________ no longer has any power over Canadian laws

Answer 85

Patriation / Constitution Act Britain.

Question 86

The Constitution Act (1982) established Five things. What were they?

Answer 86

1. 4 legal formulas/processes for amending legislation. 2. Entrenched some part of the constitution - s.52 supremacy clause 3. Sets out the Charter of Rights and Freedoms 4. Gives some provinces natural resources (Alberta and Saskatchewan - Oil); Ontario and North - Mining) 5. Indigenous Populations Granted explicit rights

Question 87

2.5) Federalism: CASE: RE SUCESSION OF QUEBEC

Answer 87

Case History 1980 Referendum - No 59.56 1995 - No 50.58 - 49.2% wanted to secede from Canada. Case Questions 1. Under Constiution can Quevec effect Sucesssion Unilaterally? 2. Under international Law is there a right to self-determination? 3. In the event of a conflict between the two which takes precedence? Court Findings: Established Four Fundamental and Organizing Principles for Secession 1. Federalism 2. Democracy 3. Constitutionalism 4. Respect for Minorities Q.1 Response Unilateral - right to effectuate seccession without negoation. - Quebec COULD NOT invoke right of self determination (minority of federation), but other provinces could not ignore issue in Quebec.

Question 88

Constitutional Structure of Government Two Levels

Answer 88

i) National (federal) ii) Regional/state (provincial) Each level of government is independent from each other. Derive power from constitution.

Question 89

2.6) _________ __________ has the power to deal with national issues, to make laws applicable to all citizens, and to represent the units of the federation. _______ are designated to settle federal / regional constitutional disputes

Answer 89

Central government. Courts.

Question 90

2.6) what prevents one level of government from making unilateral changes to the constitution.

Answer 90

amending formula

Question 91

2.6) What caused Canada to choose federalism (4 Factors)

Answer 91

Diversity Quebec Civil Code American Aggression Economy

Question 92

Shifts of Power

Answer 92

Fiscal imbalance -> federal government has larger spending power due to a larger tax base to draw from. Thus, provincial governments are incentivized to comply with federal goals (i.e., healthcare -> by complying to Canadian health standards – if fed. liberals are in power).

Question 93

2.6) What did the BNA (1867) establish? (5 points)

Answer 93

- guarantee of French and English in Parliament, Legislatures, and Courts - guaranteed separate schools for Protestant’s and Catholics (Quebec + Ontario) - created the federation - sets out division of powers - vested formal power in the Queen and created Queen’s privy council - empowered Parliament to create Supreme Court of Canada

Question 94

2.6) What did the BNA (1867) establish? (5 points)

Answer 94

- COOFFICIAL LANGUAGES: guarantee of French and English in Parliament, Legislatures, and Courts - CIVIL CODE: guaranteed separate schools for Protestant’s and Catholics (Quebec + Ontario) - created the federation - sets out division of powers - QUEEN + PRIVY COUNCIL: vested formal power in the Queen and created Queen’s privy council - SSC: empowered Parliament to create Supreme Court of Canada

Question 95

In each jurisdiction, highest court is ____________ . But ________ _________ is highest in Canada, all ________ ________ decisions are binding at every level.

Answer 95

Court of Appeal. Supreme Court of Canada. Supreme Court of Canada.

Question 96

T/F: If something is NOT identified, power goes to ___________ government Federal v Provincial

Answer 96

FEDERAL.

Question 97

_______ ________ à jurisdiction does NOT have the authority à unconstitutional _________ ________ à jurisdiction DOES have the authority à constitutional

Answer 97

Ultra Vires Intra Vires

Question 98

CASE FACTS: R V Morgentaler

Answer 98

People R. - the provincial government Morgentaler - championed abortion - a pro abortion doctor - Nova Scotia - fought two SCC cases (1976, 1988) Case Questions: is it within provincial power - 92 (7) & 16 or restricted to federal power over criminal law. Nova Scotia Government argued regulations were intra Vires under provincial authority over health. Need to identify the matter of law - Pith and substance Must consider “legal effect” of and “practical effect” of law Verdict: ***Found Criminal Code provisions relating to abortion were unconstitutional because they violated women’s Charter guarantee of security of the person*** (S.7) Morgentaler won case.

Question 99

3.1) What is the Charter?

Answer 99

à protection of individual rights and freedoms (civil rights)

Question 100

3.1) Human rights are?

Answer 100

Inherent – you are born with rights Universal – all humans have rights. Interrelated, Interdependent, Indivisble à (i.e., freedom of expression is interconnected to freedom of religion) State has an obligation to protect the rights

Question 101

3.1) ________ ________ are things the state needs to provide (education, health care) _________ ________ are things the state needs to stay out of (freedom of expression)

Answer 101

Positive Rights. Negative Rights.

Question 102

3.1) If a statute takes away a _______ ______, courts CANNOT provide protection.

Answer 102

Civil Liberty.

Question 103

The __________ _____ of rights was passed in 1960. States

Answer 103

Canadian Bill.

Question 104

3.1) The Charter applies ONLY to the ____________

Answer 104

GOVERNMENT.

Question 105

3.1) The Charter applies ONLY to the ____________

Answer 105

GOVERNMENT.

Question 106

3.1) The Charter Applies only to the

Answer 106

a) The parliament and government of Canada in respect of all matters within authority of Parliment b) to the legislature in respect to all matters within authority of the legislature.

Question 107

Section __ of the Charter states our fundamental ________. These include (4 Things)

Answer 107

2. Freedoms. (A) conscience and religion (B) thought, belief, option, expression, (freedom of press) (C) peaceful assembly (D) Association

Question 108

Section __ of the Charter states our fundamental ________. These include (4 Things)

Answer 108

2. Freedoms. (A) conscience and religion (B) thought, belief, option, expression, (freedom of press) (C) peaceful assembly (D) Association

Question 109

Section __-__ states our ____-cratic rights

Answer 109

3-5 Democratic.

Question 110

Section __-__ states our ____-cratic rights

Answer 110

3-5 Democratic.

Question 111

Section ___ states our m_______ rights.

Answer 111

6. Mobility.

Question 112

Section __-__ states our L_______ rights

Answer 112

7-14. Legal.

Question 113

State the legal rights (S.7-14)

Answer 113

7. Life liberty security of person 8. Unreasonable search or seizure 10. Rights of arrest/detention 11. Procedural rights 12. No cruel or unusal punishment 13. Self crimination.

Question 114

Section ___ of charter states our E______ rights

Answer 114

15. Equality.

Question 115

3.1) S.___ of the charter states the __________ limits

Answer 115

1. Reasonable.

Question 116

3.1) S.__ __ states the not-___________ clause

Answer 116

1. Withstanding.

Question 117

3.2) when interpreting the charter what does the word “everyone” refer to?

Answer 117

Includes citizens and individuals. (Important Note: Not all human is a Citizen) Everyone can include Corporations (own legal identity)

Question 118

The charter is a series of __________. The _______ of terms can be _______ ________ differently by the courts.

Answer 118

Expressions. Vagueness. Interpreted.

Question 119

3.2) What is the paradigm of the Constitution? (2 points)

Answer 119

Originalism Living Constitution Note (***Paradigm - Contradicts each other - Mutually exclusive)

Question 120

3.2) What does the term “Originalism” mean in the Context of the Charter.

Answer 120

What applies in 1982 (Constitution Act) applies now.

Question 121

3.2) what does the term “living constitution” mean in the context of the Charter

Answer 121

The constitution is evolving (as situations change) and what is meant in 1982 does not necessarily apply now.

Question 122

3.2) what are the limits of the Charter (4 things)

Question 123

3.2) Section 1 (reasonable limits) outlines

Answer 123

Guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by laws as can be in a free and democratic society.

Question 124

What did the case R v Oakes define

Answer 124

1. Define rights and determine if infringe 2. If infringed, determined if the infringement is justified (through a method called the Oakes test)

Question 125

3.3) If a persons rights and freedoms and infringed, and the infringement ________ the Oakes test, the infringement is __________. Therefore the infringement ___ constitutional.

Answer 125

Passes. Justified. Is.

Question 126

3.3) If a persons rights and freedoms and infringed, and the infringement FAILS the Oakes test, the infringement is __________. Therefore the infringement __constitutional.

Answer 126

Not Justified. Unconstitutional.

Question 127

3.3) If a person's rights and freedoms and infringed, and the infringement FAILS the Oakes test, the infringement is __________. Therefore the infringement __constitutional.

Answer 127

Not Justified. Unconstitutional.

Question 128

3.3) 1. What is the pressing and substantial objective test? (First Aspect of Oakes Test)?

Answer 128

- A test to conclude whether the law infringing is pressing and substantial enough to the parties involved.

Question 129

3.3) Rational Connection Test (2nd Aspect of Oakes Test)

Answer 129

Is there a rational connection between the pressing and substantial objective and the infringement (of the Charter) (is there a need to infringe to achieve the objective.)

Question 130

3.3) If there is no need to infringe upon a person's rights to achieve a certain objective, the infringement _____ the ___________ connections test, thus failing the ________ test.

Answer 130

FAILS. Rational. Oakes.

Question 131

3.3) The Rational Connection Test is established as a part of the Oakes test to determine whether there is a ______ to infringe upon a person's rights to achieve a ___________ and ___________ objective.

Answer 131

NEED. Pressing and Substaintial.

Question 132

3.3) The Minimally Imparing Test:

Answer 132

(least drastic means test) – is the infringement minimally impairing – in other words, if you recognize there’s a pressing and substantial objective that the infringement the law has an objective and the infringement that to achieve the objective that there is a rational connection between them. Is this the only way you can do this? Is there another way that is less impairing (less infringing) that can be used to achieve the same objective?

Question 133

3.3) If the infringement is least damaging way to the parties involved, to achieve the ___________ and _________ objective, then the infringement passes the _________ _________ test.

Answer 133

Substantial and Pressing. Minimally Imparing.

Question 134

3.3) If the infringement is least damaging way to the parties involved, to achieve the ___________ and _________ objective, then the infringement _______ _____ pass the minimally imparing test.

Answer 134

Pressing and Substantial. DOES NOT.

Question 135

T/F: The Proportionate test is the most important part of the Oakes Test.

Answer 135

TRUE. ***this is where most of case law had infringements that fail

Question 136

Case Facts: Irwin Toy v. Quebec

Question 137

Proportionate test tries to establish __________ between the __________ of the objective and the ________ of the infringement?

Answer 137

Proportion. Benefits. Impact.

Question 138

3.3) Define Section 33 of the Charter

Answer 138

Notwithstanding Clause: Parliament or legislature of a province may expressly declare in an Act... that an Act or a provision thereof shall operate notwithstanding a provision included in section 2 or sections 7 to 15 of the Charter.

Question 139

3.3) What is the term "notwithstanding" mean in relation to the non-withstanding clause? What is the caveat of this rule?

Answer 139

Any Act created in the legislature will cease and can take effect (Despite) the fact that they may violate sections 2 or 7-15 of the charter. The rule must be reviewed every 5 years Or when specified when act is declared.

Question 140

(not on exam but helpful example) Explain Quebec's Bill 101, and 178 effective use of Notwithstanding Clause (S.33)

Answer 140

ex. Bill 101 was passed to make french official language in Quebec schools. (Quebec, French Only Signs) violates Charter. Supreme court of Canada invlidates Bill saying this Bill violates the charter (section 23, right to educate in official language - either English or French - thus children can enrol in anglophone education system in quebec). New law enacted called Bill 178, which allowed bilingual signs only in businesses. This still violates the section 23, however, the government invoked section 33 to nullify any challenged to the Bill for the time being.

Question 141

The Nonwithstanding Clause is intended to be ___________ only. It is rarely used, mostly used in what the province of _________. Hint (Oui)

Answer 141

Prospective. Quebec.

Question 142

Fill in the rest of the sentence: The Non-withstanding clause is the...

Answer 142

right of a government to pass a legislation that will infringe onto the rights.

Question 143

T/F: The notwithstanding clause is a political tool with real government disadvantages à government will probably not be re-elected).

Answer 143

True.

Question 143

3.4) How does a Charter case occur in ordinary law enforcement?

Answer 143

argument that law being enforced is unconstitutional.

Question 144

Review the Following Example of Charter Case:

Answer 144

Ex. All Nickelback is banned from being played in public places. Ordinary Law Enforcement: You as a person: Can challenge charges (law is enforced when government tells you to turn on music when listening to Nickelback in the park) Preemptively: In case that is not enforced: can still "preemptively challenge law as president of fan club".

Question 144

T/F: You can challenge a law on the grounds that it infringes upon our rights and freedoms, even if the law being enforced is unconstitutional.

Answer 144

TRUE.

Question 145

3.4) Two Ways Charter case can arise

Answer 145

- Ordinary Law - Preemptively

Question 145

Who makes up the parties to a typical Charter Case?

Answer 145

Plaintiff: the person making a claim Defendant: State (attorney general)

Question 146

Burden of proof (Civil)

Answer 146

the defendant is probably legally responsible or liable.

Question 146

Burden of proof (criminal)

Answer 146

Beyond reasonable doubt

Question 147

3.4) When a Charter case arises legislature is presumed TO BE, thus

Answer 147

When charter is infringed , onus on government to show that the infringement is justified

Question 148

3.4) What does "Onus" mean in the context of the law?

Answer 148

It is attributed to the party that has a duty to prove (or defend) their case.

Question 149

3.4) A Charter case must be _________. (Have to be affected by law)

Answer 149

Standing.

Question 150

3.4) What does the word "Interveners" mean in the context of the charter.

Answer 150

participants in the Charter case.

Question 151

What is the purpose of "Interveners" in the context of Charter cases?

Answer 151

To advance different agruments.

Question 152

3.4) What does s.24 of the Charter outline:

Answer 152

Enforcement

Question 153

Enforcement (S.24) states that:

Answer 153

Anyone whose rights or freedoms, as guaranteed by this Charter, have been infringed or denied may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction to obtain such remedy as the court considers appropriate and just in the circumstances.

Question 154

T/F: According to section 24 of the charter, Anyone whose rights or freedoms, as guaranteed by this Charter, have been infringed or denied may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction to obtain such remedy as the court considers appropriate and just in the circumstances.

Answer 154

TRUE.

Question 155

3.4) S.24 of the Charter allows people who have had their rights infringed upon the right to obtain a ________.

Answer 155

remedy. (for damages)

Question 156

Section 52 of the Charter is called the ___________ clause.

Answer 156

Supremacy Clause.

Question 157

The supremacy clause allows the courts to ________ ________ (invalidate) parts of the legislature that are in ___________ (in violation) upon the rights stated in the charter.

Answer 157

Strike Down. Infringing.

Question 158

S.24: (IMPORTANT): What are remedies that the court uses for those who are infringing upon the Charter (___________, __________, _________) (HINT: acronym D.I.D)

Answer 158

Declarations Injunctions Damages

Question 159

What is an injunction in context to S.24(1) enforcement of the charter?

Answer 159

It is a judicial order to stop doing something.

Question 160

What are damages in context to S.24(1) enforcement of the charter?

Answer 160

$$$$$$$$ (MONEY)

Question 161

MODULE 3: CASE EXAMPLE: SCHACTHER ---> IMPORTANT CASE FACTS: (REVIEW BELOW)

Answer 161

People Involved: Scather - Father of newborn denied benefits under the Unemployment Insurance Act.

Question 162

Why was Scather denied benefits under the Unemployment Insurance Act?

Answer 162

Applied to mothers of adoptive parents. (Scather is a man)

Question 163

What specific section of the charter did Scather claim that his rights were infringed upon:

Answer 163

Section 15 - Equality Rights

Question 164

T/F: The SCC ruled against Scather in his case.

Answer 164

FALES - they ruled with him. Agreed that his ineligibility of the Unemployment Insurance act on the basis of gender was in violation of section 15 of the charter.

Question 165

What are the three questions that must be asked when Section 52 (Supremacy Clause) - anything that is inconsistent with the charter is to inconsistency is to of no force or effect.

Answer 165

1. What is the extent of the inconsistency (Determined by the Oakes Test) 2. Can inconsistency be dealt with alone? - Determined by the "Minimally impairing" and "Proportionate effect" part of the proportionality test (Section 2 of the Oakes test) 3. Should the declaration be temporarily invalid, it gives the government the opportunity to correct it.

Question 166

3.4) Section 52: Supremacy Clause - Second Question Asked When Invoking the Clause - "When is it appropriate only to deal with inconsistency alone clear cases?" State the Answers (3 Points):

Answer 166

1. Legislative objective obvious, and it will further objective or constitute a lesser interference 2. The choice of means is not unequivocal, so not an unacceptable intrusion on the legislative domain. 3. Does not involve significant intrusion into budgetary decisions.

Question 167

3.4) Section 52: Supremacy Clause - Third Question Asked When Invoking the Clause - "Should declaration be temporarily invalid? Gives government opportunity to correct" State the Answers (3 Points):

Answer 167

1. Striking down (legislature - using (s.52) may pose a danger to the public. 2. Striking down would threaten the rule of law 3. Suffered from under inclusiveness, and striking down would deprive deserving persons of benefits.

Question 168

T/F: It is appropriate to engage section 52 of the charter EVEN IF the declaration would pose a enage to the public or threaten the rule of law

Answer 168

FALSE. Not appropriate in these situations, and when striking down would deprive deserving persons of benefits.

Question 169

Are the Three Questions when invoking section 52. are hard rules (rigid), or guidelines (flexible)?

Answer 169

Guidelines (flexible)

Question 170

Case Facts Schacther v. Canada (Chat GPT Summary):

Answer 170

Schachter v. Canada is a landmark Supreme Court of Canada decision from 1992. The case dealt with the issue of whether the Canadian government had violated the equality rights guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Case Background: The case arose when Brian Schachter, a father, applied for unemployment insurance benefits under the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, after taking leave from work to care for his newborn child. The Act provided maternity benefits to biological mothers and adoptive parents but did not provide similar benefits to biological fathers. Schachter argued that this exclusion discriminated against biological fathers and violated Section 15(1) of the Charter, which guarantees equality rights. Supreme Court Ruling: The Supreme Court of Canada ruled in favor of Schachter, finding that the exclusion of biological fathers from the benefits was discriminatory and violated Section 15(1) of the Charter. The court applied a section 52(1) remedy from the Constitution Act, 1982, which allows the courts to strike down laws that are inconsistent with the Constitution. Key Points of the Ruling: Violation of Equality Rights: The exclusion of biological fathers from unemployment insurance benefits was found to be discriminatory and violated Section 15(1) of the Charter. Justification Under Section 1: The court found that the violation could not be justified under Section 1 of the Charter, which allows reasonable limits on rights and freedoms that can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. Remedy: Instead of extending benefits to biological fathers immediately, the court chose to strike down the relevant provisions of the Act, giving Parliament the opportunity to correct the legislation. The ruling in Schachter v. Canada is significant because it clarified the application of Section 15(1) of the Charter and established important principles regarding the remedies available for Charter violations.

Question 171

CHAT GPT Summary of Rancerelli v Duplessis

Answer 171

Roncarelli v. Duplessis is a landmark Supreme Court of Canada decision from 1959. The case addressed the limits of discretionary power of public officials and the rule of law in Canada. Case Background: Frank Roncarelli was a Jehovah's Witness and a restaurant owner in Montreal, Quebec. He provided bail for Jehovah's Witnesses who had been arrested for distributing religious literature. Maurice Duplessis was the Premier and Attorney General of Quebec at the time. In retaliation for Roncarelli’s support of Jehovah's Witnesses, Duplessis ordered the cancellation of Roncarelli's liquor license, effectively putting him out of business. Supreme Court Ruling: The Supreme Court of Canada ruled in favor of Roncarelli, finding that Duplessis had abused his power and acted beyond the scope of his authority. Key Points of the Ruling: Abuse of Discretion: The court found that Duplessis had acted with malice and in bad faith by using his position to punish Roncarelli for his religious activities. This was an abuse of the discretionary power vested in him. Rule of Law: The decision emphasized that no public official is above the law and that discretionary powers must be exercised within the boundaries of legal authority and with fairness. The rule of law requires that actions taken by officials must have a legal basis. Compensation: Roncarelli was awarded damages for the wrongful cancellation of his liquor license and the financial loss he suffered as a result. Significance: Roncarelli v. Duplessis is a foundational case in Canadian administrative law. It reinforced the principle that government officials cannot act arbitrarily and must adhere to the rule of law. The case established important precedents regarding the limits of discretionary power and the protection of individual rights against abuse by public authorities.

Question 172

RE Manitoba Language Rights

Answer 172

Reference re Manitoba Language Rights is a notable Supreme Court of Canada decision from 1985 that addressed the constitutionality of Manitoba's laws and their compliance with the bilingual language requirements set out in the Manitoba Act, 1870. Case Background: The Manitoba Act, 1870, which created the province of Manitoba, included provisions that required laws to be enacted in both English and French. However, since 1890, Manitoba had largely ceased to publish its laws in French. This practice was challenged, raising questions about the validity of laws that had not been enacted in accordance with the bilingual requirements. Supreme Court Ruling: The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that all Manitoba statutes and regulations enacted only in English since 1890 were invalid due to non-compliance with the bilingual requirements of the Manitoba Act, 1870. Key Points of the Ruling: Bilingual Requirements: The court reaffirmed that the Manitoba Act, 1870, required the province to enact, print, and publish its laws in both English and French. Invalidity of Unilingual Laws: The court declared that statutes and regulations enacted only in English since 1890 were invalid. Rule of Law and Continuity: Recognizing the potential legal and administrative chaos that could result from the invalidation of nearly a century's worth of laws, the court invoked the doctrine of the rule of law to grant temporary validity to the invalid laws. This allowed Manitoba time to re-enact and publish these laws in both languages. Implementation and Consequences: Following the decision, Manitoba undertook a significant legislative review process to re-enact and publish its laws in both English and French to comply with the constitutional requirements. This process involved substantial legislative work to ensure that the legal system remained functional and that all laws were accessible in both official languages. Significance: The decision in Reference re Manitoba Language Rights is a critical affirmation of the constitutional requirement for bilingual legislation in Manitoba. It underscores the importance of language rights in Canada and the necessity for government compliance with constitutional provisions. The case also highlights the court's role in balancing the strict application of legal principles with practical considerations to maintain the rule of law and avoid legal uncertainty.

Question 173

Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms, freedom of t_______, b______, o_______, e__________, freedom of the p_____

Answer 173

thought, belief, opinion, expression, press.

Question 173

3.5) What is Section 2(b): Expression

Answer 173

Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms. Freedom of thought, belief, opinion, expression, freedom of the press.

Question 174

3.5) What is the meaning of "expression" in the context of section 2(b) of the Charter?

Answer 174

Converys or attempts to conveys or attempts to convey a meaning.

Question 175

IMPORTANT: (CHAT GPT) Irwin Toy v Quebec (AG) --> READ THROUGH IN DETAIL.

Answer 175

Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Quebec (Attorney General) is a landmark Supreme Court of Canada decision from 1989 that addresses the limits of freedom of expression under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Case Background: Irwin Toy Ltd. was a company that manufactured and marketed toys. Quebec’s Consumer Protection Act included provisions that prohibited commercial advertising directed at children under 13 years old. Irwin Toy challenged these provisions, arguing that they violated its freedom of expression as guaranteed by Section 2(b) of the Charter. Supreme Court Ruling: The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that while the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act did indeed infringe on freedom of expression, the infringement was justified under Section 1 of the Charter, which allows for reasonable limits on rights and freedoms. Key Points of the Ruling: Scope of Freedom of Expression: The court held that the protection of freedom of expression under Section 2(b) of the Charter includes commercial advertising, recognizing that expression is a broad concept covering any activity that conveys or attempts to convey meaning. Infringement Justified: Although the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act infringed on freedom of expression, the court found the infringement to be justified under Section 1 of the Charter. The court applied the Oakes test, which balances the rights of individuals against the interests of society. Pressing and Substantial Objective: The objective of protecting children from the manipulation of commercial advertising was deemed pressing and substantial. Proportionality: The court found that the means chosen by the Quebec legislature were proportional to the objective. The prohibition was rationally connected to the objective, minimally impairing the right to freedom of expression, and there was proportionality between the effects of the measures and the objective. S ignificance: The decision in Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Quebec (AG) is significant for several reasons: Broad Interpretation of Freedom of Expression: It established a broad interpretation of freedom of expression, including commercial advertising within its scope. Application of the Oakes Test: The case is a key example of the application of the Oakes test to determine whether a limitation on a Charter right is justified under Section 1. Protection of Vulnerable Groups: The ruling emphasized the importance of protecting vulnerable groups, such as children, from potential harm, even at the cost of limiting certain expressions. This case is often cited in subsequent freedom of expression cases and has had a lasting impact on Canadian constitutional law, particularly in the context of commercial speech and consumer protection.

Question 176

2(b) What is the purpose of the expression in the context of Section 2(b) of the Charter?

Answer 176

1. Truth-seeking as an inherent good 2. Participation in social & political decision-making 3. Cultivating Diversity & Human Flourishing

Question 177

Spectrum of Speech <-________-------__________------_______->

Answer 177

<-hate------commercial--------political--> (Whatcott). (Irwin Toy). Whatcott = Hate - Distributed anti-homosexuality flyers in community Contary to s.14 of HUman Rights Code

Question 178

what did Whatcott do that was thought to be contrary to s.14 (expose to hatred

Answer 178

Distribute homosexuality flyers.

Question 179

CHATGPT Whatcott Case Summary: Somewhat Important: review below

Answer 179

Saskatchewan (Human Rights Commission) v. Whatcott, often referred to as the Whatcott case, is a significant Supreme Court of Canada decision from 2013 that deals with the limits of freedom of expression and hate speech under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Case Background: William Whatcott, an activist, distributed flyers in Saskatchewan that contained derogatory statements about homosexuality. These flyers led to complaints being filed with the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission, alleging that the flyers promoted hatred against individuals based on their sexual orientation, which is prohibited under Saskatchewan’s Human Rights Code. The Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal initially found Whatcott’s flyers to constitute hate speech, and this decision was upheld by the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal. Whatcott then appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada. Supreme Court Ruling: The Supreme Court of Canada upheld the decision of the Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal, finding that some of Whatcott’s flyers did indeed constitute hate speech under the Human Rights Code. Key Points of the Ruling: Definition of Hate Speech: The court clarified the definition of hate speech, emphasizing that it involves expressions that are likely to expose individuals or groups to hatred. The court noted that hate speech is more than just offensive or controversial speech; it is speech that vilifies or dehumanizes a group, leading to potential harm. Balancing Freedom of Expression and Protection from Hate Speech: The court reaffirmed that while freedom of expression is a fundamental right under Section 2(b) of the Charter, it is not absolute. Restrictions on hate speech can be justified under Section 1 of the Charter, which permits reasonable limits on rights that can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. Application of the Oakes Test: The court applied the Oakes test to determine if the limitation on Whatcott’s freedom of expression was justified. The objective of protecting individuals and groups from hate speech was deemed pressing and substantial. The court found that the provisions of the Human Rights Code were rationally connected to this objective, minimally impairing Whatcott’s rights, and proportional to the harm prevented. Interpretation of Legislation: The court provided guidance on interpreting human rights legislation, emphasizing the importance of balancing free expression with the protection against discrimination and harm. Significance: The Whatcott case is significant for several reasons: Clarification on Hate Speech: It provides a clear legal framework for identifying and dealing with hate speech, distinguishing it from other forms of protected expression. Balance of Rights: The decision underscores the balance between protecting freedom of expression and protecting individuals and groups from hate speech and discrimination. Human Rights Law: It reinforces the role of human rights commissions and tribunals in addressing hate speech and upholding protections against discrimination. This ruling is a cornerstone in Canadian jurisprudence on hate speech and continues to influence how courts and human rights bodies handle cases involving the intersection of freedom of expression and hate speech.

Question 180

T/F: In Whatcott, the Court concluded that racist expression should not be protected by the freedom of expression because it is akin to violent expression.

Answer 180

FALSE.

Question 181

Why was Whatcott found guilty of hate speech (court definition)

Answer 181

The court found that the flyers were more than just distressing (not big of a threshold to constitute hate speech) they MARGINALIZEED individuals based on membership in a group.

Question 182

Why was restricting Whatcott's speech justified?

Answer 182

Under Section 1 of the charter, they permit reasonable limitations of freedom of speech and expression. Additionally, the Oakes test proves that restricting Whatcott's speech is justified.

Question 183

What do the Findings in the Irwin Toy Case address?

Answer 183

Advertising to children.

Question 184

Chat GTP WITHLER V CANADA 15 (1) CASE FACTS

Answer 184

Withler v. Canada (Attorney General) is a significant Supreme Court of Canada decision from 2011 that deals with the interpretation of Section 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees equality rights. Case Background: Margaret Withler, the widow of a federal employee, challenged the reduction of her survivor benefits under the Public Service Superannuation Act and the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act. These acts provided for a reduction in supplementary death benefits when the deceased employee was over a certain age at the time of death. Withler argued that this reduction discriminated based on age and violated Section 15(1) of the Charter. Supreme Court Ruling: The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed Withler's appeal, ruling that the reduction of benefits did not violate Section 15(1) of the Charter. Key Points of the Ruling: Test for Equality Rights Violation: The court reaffirmed the two-step test for assessing a violation of Section 15(1): Differential Treatment: The claimant must show that the law creates a distinction based on an enumerated or analogous ground. Discrimination: The claimant must demonstrate that the distinction perpetuates disadvantage or stereotyping. Contextual Analysis: The court emphasized the importance of a contextual analysis in equality claims. This approach considers the broader context of the legislation and its objectives, recognizing that some distinctions may be justified in achieving legislative goals. No Discrimination Found: In this case, the court found that the reduction of supplementary death benefits based on age did not perpetuate disadvantage or stereotyping. The reduction was part of a comprehensive legislative scheme designed to balance various social and economic objectives, including the management of public funds and providing for survivors. Legislative Objectives: The court noted that the legislation aimed to provide financial security to survivors while considering the financial sustainability of the benefits system. The reduction in benefits for older employees was viewed as a reasonable measure to achieve these objectives. Significance: The decision in Withler v. Canada (AG) is significant for several reasons: Clarification of Equality Rights Analysis: It provided further clarification on the approach to analyzing equality rights claims under Section 15(1) of the Charter, particularly the importance of a contextual and purposive analysis. Deference to Legislative Choices: The ruling showed judicial deference to legislative choices in complex policy areas, recognizing that not all distinctions based on enumerated or analogous grounds constitute discrimination. Balancing Rights and Policy Objectives: The case highlights the balance between individual equality rights and broader policy objectives, such as financial sustainability and equitable distribution of public resources. Overall, Withler v. Canada is an important case in Canadian constitutional law, providing guidance on how courts should approach equality rights claims and the balance between protecting individual rights and achieving legislative policy goals.

Question 185

Chat GTP R V KAPP CASE FACTS (IMPORTANT)

Answer 185

R v. Kapp is a landmark Supreme Court of Canada decision from 2008 that deals with the interpretation and application of Section 15(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which permits affirmative action programs designed to improve the conditions of disadvantaged groups. Case Background: The case arose when a group of non-Indigenous commercial fishers, led by John Kapp, challenged a communal fishing license issued by the Canadian government that allowed Indigenous fishers to fish for salmon in the Fraser River for one day before the general commercial fishing season opened. The non-Indigenous fishers argued that the license discriminated against them based on race, contrary to Section 15(1) of the Charter, which guarantees equality rights. Supreme Court Ruling: The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, ruling that the communal fishing license was a valid exercise of the government's authority under Section 15(2) of the Charter. Key Points of the Ruling: Purpose of Section 15(2): The court clarified that Section 15(2) is designed to protect affirmative action programs and initiatives aimed at improving the conditions of disadvantaged groups. It allows for distinctions that would otherwise be discriminatory under Section 15(1) if they serve to ameliorate the conditions of these groups. Two-Step Analysis for Section 15 Claims: The court outlined a two-step analysis for claims under Section 15 of the Charter: Section 15(1) Analysis: Determine whether there is a distinction based on an enumerated or analogous ground that results in disadvantage. Section 15(2) Analysis: If a program falls within Section 15(2), it is not necessary to proceed to a Section 1 analysis (which deals with justifying limitations on rights). The court must determine if the program has an ameliorative purpose that targets a disadvantaged group. Application to the Case: The court found that the communal fishing license had an ameliorative purpose aimed at improving the socio-economic conditions of Indigenous communities, who are recognized as historically disadvantaged. Therefore, the program was protected by Section 15(2) and did not constitute discrimination under Section 15(1). Significance: The decision in R v. Kapp is significant for several reasons: Clarification of Affirmative Action: It clarified the interpretation and application of Section 15(2), emphasizing that affirmative action programs aimed at helping disadvantaged groups are constitutionally protected. Equality Jurisprudence: The ruling provided important guidance on the interaction between Sections 15(1) and 15(2) of the Charter, shaping how courts analyze claims of discrimination and the validity of ameliorative programs. Support for Indigenous Rights: The decision recognized the legitimacy of government initiatives to support Indigenous communities, reinforcing the principle that measures designed to address historical disadvantages faced by these communities are constitutionally valid. Overall, R v. Kapp is a foundational case in Canadian equality law, particularly in the context of affirmative action and the protection of disadvantaged groups under the Charter.

Question 186

Section ____ (Equality) of the Charter, states the following:

Answer 186

15. Everyone individual is equal befrore and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination, and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethic, origin, colour, religion sex, age, or mental or physical disability.

Question 187

3.5) Section 15 (2) states what:

Answer 187

Subsection (1) does not preclude (prevent) any law program or activity that has as its object the amelioration (bettering) of the condition of disadvantaged people including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national, or ethnic origin colour religion, sex, age, or mental or physical disability.

Question 188

General types of discrimination include d______ and i_______ discrimination

Answer 188

direct. Indirect.

Question 189

T/F Indirect discrimination disproportionately negatively affects those involved.

Answer 189

TRUE.

Question 190

What section of the charter enables the government to pro-actively combat discrimination.

Answer 190

15.2

Question 191

3.5) When the government can demonstrate an a___________ (bettering) purpose, they do not need to refer to s.15 (1) to justify freedoms.

Answer 191

ameliorative.

Question 192

3.5) Why was per Kapp (Aboriginal Fishing rights)

Answer 192

1. Program has an ameliorative or remedial purpose 2. Program targest a disadvantgaged group identified by enumerated or analgous grounds.

Question 193

T/F: The first step in the test for asseing a section 15(1) claim is "Whether there is a distinction based on enumerated or analgous ground"

Answer 193

TRUE.

Question 193

3.5) In the context of section 15.1 of the charte, enumerated grounds refers to what:

Answer 193

race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age, or mental or physical disability.

Question 193

3.5) In the context of section 15.1 of the charte, analgous grounds refers to:

Answer 193

IN PARTICULAR a personal characteristic that is immutable or chageable only at unacceptable cost to personal identity" Can Include (example provided) - Citizenship - Andrews v Law Society of British Columbia. - Marital Statues - Mirion v Trudel - Sexual Orientation - Vriend v Alberta

Question 194

3.5) What is the name of the test that tests for Equality?

Answer 194

Withler Test.

Question 195

3.5) What are the two parts of the Withler Test:

Answer 195

1) Does law create a distinction based on an enumerated or analogous ground? 2) Does the distinction create a disadvantage by perpetuating prejudice or sterotyping.

Question 195

1) Does the law create dist__________ based on enumerated or analgous ground and (2) does the dist___________ create a disa__________ by perpetuating prejudice or sterotyping? Are the two parts of the W________ test.

Answer 195

Distinction. Distinction. Disadvantage. Withler.

Question 195

YES or NO? Lavaoe Case: Hosted a third floor consensual orgy.

Answer 195

NO, not a crime. (SCC)

Question 196

In Withler, the court held that the second part of the test for assessing a section 15(1) claim under the Charter can be satisfied by proving one eof three things. Which of the following is NOT one of the three. A. Perpetuation of prejudice. B. Stereotyping in a way that does not correspond to the actual circumstances of characteristics. C. Differential Treatment. D. Perpetuation of Disadvantages

Answer 196

Differential Treatment

Question 196

Weatherall V Canada:

Answer 196

Weatherall v. Canada (Attorney General) is a Supreme Court of Canada decision from 1993 that addresses the balance between the rights of prisoners and the operational requirements of correctional institutions, particularly regarding privacy rights under Section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Case Background: John Weatherall, a male inmate in a federal penitentiary, challenged the practice of routine frisk searches and patrolling by female guards, arguing that it violated his right to privacy and his rights under Sections 7 and 8 of the Charter. Section 7 guarantees the right to life, liberty, and security of the person, and Section 8 protects against unreasonable search and seizure. Supreme Court Ruling: The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed Weatherall's appeal, ruling that the practices in question did not violate his Charter rights. Key Points of the Ruling: Privacy Rights in Prisons: The court recognized that inmates retain certain residual privacy rights even while incarcerated, but these rights are significantly diminished due to the nature of the prison environment and the necessity of maintaining security and order. Reasonableness of Searches: The court found that routine frisk searches and patrolling by female guards were reasonable in the context of a correctional facility. The searches were conducted in a manner consistent with institutional security requirements and did not amount to an unreasonable infringement on Weatherall’s privacy rights. Gender Equality: The court emphasized that employing female guards to perform duties equivalent to those performed by male guards is an important aspect of gender equality in the workplace. Restricting female guards from performing searches and patrols would undermine their role and contribute to gender discrimination. Balance of Interests: The decision highlighted the need to balance the rights of inmates with the operational requirements of correctional facilities. The court ruled that the practices challenged by Weatherall were justified given the security concerns and the need to uphold gender equality in employment. Significance: The decision in Weatherall v. Canada is significant for several reasons: Limits on Privacy Rights in Prisons: It clarifies the extent to which privacy rights are limited within the context of incarceration, acknowledging the unique environment of correctional facilities. Gender Equality in Employment: The ruling supports the principle of gender equality in the workplace, emphasizing that female guards must be allowed to perform the same duties as their male counterparts to avoid discrimination. Balancing Rights and Security: The case underscores the importance of balancing individual rights with institutional needs, particularly in settings where security is a paramount concern. Overall, Weatherall v. Canada is an important case in Canadian law, providing guidance on the interplay between prisoners’ rights, privacy, and the operational demands of correctional institutions.

Question 196

Every crime can be broken into its constituent parts (Called elements of the offence), these can be grouped into two categories m____ _____ and a_____ ______.

Answer 196

Mens Rea. Actus Reus.

Question 197

T/F. Every distinction or differentiation in the Treatment of an individual at law will violate the equality provisions of the charter.

Answer 197

False.

Question 197

4.1) Impaired Driving is a _______, Careless Driving is a ________ ________

Answer 197

Crime. Provincial offense.

Question 197

4.1) Crime may have an element of _________ harm.

Answer 197

Moral

Question 198

4.1) Mens Rea refers to a blameworthy ________ state.

Answer 198

mental. ***What you cannot be thinking if you do it (state of mind).

Question 199

4.1) Actus Reus refers to a ________ deed.

Answer 199

wrongul ***What you cannot do.

Question 200

What are the three parts of Actus Reus? (VCC acronym)

Answer 200

a. Voluntariness ---> was it done voluntarily and purposely. b. Conduct --> did this fit the statutory terms of the offense c. Causation -> did it cause a consequence

Question 200

T/F: Criminal Liability is only attached to physically voluntary acts.

Answer 200

TRUE.

Question 201

Criminal Liability is attached to someone who has committed the acts ___________ in the statutory provision for creating the offence.

Answer 201

Stipulated.

Question 202

T/F: To be guilty of some crimes, just need to commit the act.

Answer 202

FALSE. In certain cases, you must cause specified consequences to be criminally liability. Ex. Assault casues bodily harm. s.267 (b)

Question 203

Define causation in the context of the criminal liability:

Answer 203

Causation: Adverse consequences must be caused for you to be liable.

Question 204

__________ causation was the consequence only caused by the act of the accused according to the crown (if the act didn’t occur, would the consequence not occur __________ causation was the act significantly contributing to the consequence.

Answer 204

Factual. Legal.

Question 205

What test is factual causation defined:

Answer 205

the "but for Test"

Question 206

Factual causation is defined by the ___-____ ______

Answer 206

BUt-for Test

Question 207

But-For-Test:

Answer 207

Has the Crown proved that the consequence would NOT have followed but for (any reason besides) the act of the accused. (or your a contributing factor)

Question 208

Legal causation asks whether the accused's act was a ___________ contributting cause

Answer 208

significant

Question 209

Legal causation attempts to _____ moral blame.

Answer 209

Fix

Question 210

You take your victim as you find him (if you Wound someone and they die you are Accountable) is a principle of what type of causation

Answer 210

Legal.

Question 211

Mens Rea refers to a

Answer 211

Culpable state of mind

Question 212

Mens rea refers to several concepts these include i________. k___________, R___________, W_______ b_________, C__________ N__________/

Answer 212

Intent - was it commised intentional Knowledge - was the accused in knowledge that the act may be against the law Recklessness - did the accused go ahead with the act knowing that it may be questionable Wilful blindness - was the accused willfully blind to the law (first found concepts are most common - concerned with what was in the mind of person - subjective - not should of been) Criminal negligence (objective mens rea).

Question 213

Mens rea is used to p_________ the conviction of the morally innocent

Answer 213

PREVENT.

Question 214

4.1) What is sthe faul requirment of Mens Rea:

Answer 214

at a minimum, the person acted deliberately and not objectively

Question 215

Intent vs Motive?

Answer 215

Intent: was she trying to hurt another person? Motive: why was she trying to hurt another person

Question 216

T/F: Criminal law requires look of motive:

Answer 216

FALSE: does not require proof of motive. Guilt can follow motiveless act.

Question 217

T/F: Sometimes, people are still proven guilty when the benevolent cause (i.e., stealing a tv to sell to feed the poor).

Answer 217

TRUE

Question 218

3.1) What is the fault requirment for Knowledge (mens rea)

Answer 218

what the accused knew rather than what she intended

Question 219

Knowledge = ________ = Provincial Offences

Answer 219

awareness

Question 220

3.1) What is the fault requirement for recklessness: Mens Rea?

Answer 220

Found in the attitude of one who is aware that there is danger that his conduct could bring about the result prohibited by criminal law, nervertheless persists, despite the risk" (Sansregret)

Question 221

3.1) What is the fault element for wilful blindness?

Answer 221

the accused is aroused to make further inquiries, but deliberately chooses not to.

Question 222

Wilful Blindness is ___jective and distinct from u_________ i___________

Answer 222

subjective. Unreasonable. Ignorance.

Question 223

Criminal Negligence is when:

Answer 223

a criminal does not know but should have known, that he committed a crime.

Question 224

C__________ N___________ is the only objective cause of mens rea.

Answer 224

Criminal Negligence

Question 225

Criminal Negligence is when a person acts _________recklessly. E_________ form of negligence (a marked departure of the form).

Answer 225

REALLY. ELEVATED.

Question 226

Pursuant to Section 24 of the Criminal Code, you can be guilty of a crime if you A_________(intend) to commit a crime but don't complete it.

Answer 226

attempt.

Question 227

D_______ asks about whether the relative P_______ of the act in question to what would have been the completed offence, in terms of time, location and acts under the control of the accused remaining to be accomplished.

Answer 227

Deutsch Proximity.

Question 228

T/F: Multiple people can involved in the commission of a single offence and their degree of participation may differ.

Answer 228

TRUE.

Question 229

Person who committed the crime is called P_________

Answer 229

Principal

Question 230

Does someone who enables someone to commit a crime are called A_______. They are charged as A____________

Answer 230

Aider. Accessories.

Question 231

Does someone that encourages another person to commit prescribed act labelled A___________

Answer 231

abettor.

Question 232

A person aids the commission of an offence if she (Hint: concepts of Mens Rea)

Answer 232

- Renders some assistance to the principal - Before or during the commission of crime. - For the prupose of assiting princippal - Knowing of, being willfully blind to the principal's intention.

Question 233

T/F As a general rule, simply being present when a crime is being committed and doing nothing to stop it Renders you liable.

Answer 233

FALSE. This "DOES NOT" render you liable.

Question 234

T/F: In the absence of aiding or abetting, a person can be guilty of crime B by another person during the joint commission of crime A.

Answer 234

TRUE. Example Person #1 agrees with #2 to rob a bank. Person 2 kills someone.

Question 235

T/F: According to S.464 of the criminal code, a person can be guilty of a crime even if it is NOT committed, if the specific offence that was thought to of occured had substantial risk (of occuring) and person had the knowledge that the offence counselled was likely be committed.

Answer 235

TRUE.

Question 236

Liability is negatied if the accused makes a relevant M________ of Fact (**NOT LAW)

Answer 236

Mistake.

Question 237

Mistake of Fact: is when...

Answer 237

The accused mistakenly believed in a set of facts that if true, would have rendered his actions legal. He knew the correct law, but acted illegally. (i.e., stealing an umbrella thinking it was your own). The mistake only has to be honest, not reasonable (controversial in S.A. cases)

Question 238

Stealing a bike thinking it was your own is an example of what

Answer 238

Mistake of Fact. Would of rendered actions legal.

Question 239

Mistake of Fact is most controversial in what type of cases.

Answer 239

Sexual Assault.

Question 240

Ignorance of the law by a person who commits an offence IS an excuse for committing that offence.

Answer 240

FALSE: "IS NOT"

Question 241

R v Campbell Case Facts

Answer 241

Campbell was (Convicted) The Campbell case refers to R. v. Campbell, a Supreme Court of Canada decision from 1999. The case is significant for its examination of the legal boundaries of police conduct, specifically relating to entrapment and the authority of police officers to engage in certain investigative activities. Case Background: Facts of the Case: Donald Campbell, an undercover officer with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), was involved in an operation targeting drug trafficking. During the investigation, Campbell engaged in actions that led to charges of drug trafficking against an individual named Peter Shirose. The primary issue was whether Campbell's conduct, particularly his involvement in the drug transaction, constituted entrapment or an abuse of process. Legal Issues: The case centered on whether Campbell, as a police officer, had the legal authority to participate in a drug transaction and whether his actions were in accordance with the principles of entrapment. Entrapment occurs when law enforcement officers induce a person to commit a crime that they would not have otherwise committed, often raising concerns about fairness and the proper limits of police conduct. Supreme Court Ruling: The Supreme Court of Canada ruled on several key points regarding police conduct and the doctrine of entrapment. Key Points of the Ruling: Authority of Police Officers: The court held that police officers have the authority to engage in certain actions that might otherwise be illegal if those actions are necessary for the investigation of crimes. However, this authority is not unlimited and must be exercised within the bounds of the law. Entrapment and Abuse of Process: The court outlined the principles of entrapment, emphasizing that it is an abuse of process for law enforcement officers to induce individuals to commit crimes they would not have otherwise committed. Entrapment can be claimed if the police go beyond providing an opportunity to commit a crime and actually induce the crime. Application to the Case: In Campbell’s case, the court found that his actions did not constitute entrapment. The investigation was conducted within the scope of legitimate police work, and there was no evidence that Campbell induced Shirose to commit a crime he would not have otherwise committed. Significance: The decision in R. v. Campbell is significant for several reasons: Clarification of Police Powers: It provides clear guidance on the limits of police powers in undercover operations, specifically regarding the fine line between legitimate investigation and entrapment. Principles of Entrapment: The ruling outlines the principles of entrapment, helping to protect individuals from being unfairly induced to commit crimes by law enforcement officers. Balancing Law Enforcement and Rights: The case highlights the balance between the need for effective law enforcement and the protection of individual rights, emphasizing that police conduct must always be scrutinized to prevent abuses of power. Overall, R. v. Campbell is an important case in Canadian criminal law, shaping the standards for police conduct in undercover operations and providing a framework for addressing claims of entrapment.

Question 242

T/F: Intoxication itself is NOT a defence to a crime, it is only defence to extent of contributing to mens rea.

Answer 242

TRUE.

Question 243

Why is intoxication a controversial defence?

Answer 243

it seems to exculpate someone for engaging in blameworthy behaviour.

Question 244

Intoxication is a L________ defence. (only applies to certaint crimes)

Answer 244

Limited.

Question 245

Specifc v General Intent: Specific Intent requires a more S_____________ thought process (ex. thinking about why you are hitting someone, as opposed to just hitting someone - genera)

Answer 245

Sophisticated.

Question 245

Mistake and drunkeness are defences ONLY in the sense that they negate M_____ R______

Answer 245

MEN'S REA

Question 246

Defences that exist when Mens Rea is present in the accused:

Answer 246

Necessity - succeeds if accused was in urgent and imminent peril Duress - very similar to necessity = differs from necessity, when a person is threatened with harm UNLESS he commits a crime, whereas in necessity. Succeeds in the case that there is a threat of death / bodily harm, no safe alternatives, and reasonably believe that threat will be carried out and other parameters (see below Provocation - partial defense to murder only. Concession to human infirmity. Reduces charges of murder to charges of manslaughter. Self Defence - justification-based defence (to protect ourselves from the force of others), succeeds as long as we act somewhat reasonably. (a perfect or proportional response is NOT required).

Question 247

Murder vs Manslaughter minimum sentences.

Answer 247

Murder - life jail Manslaughter - no minimum sentence.

Question 248

Provocation is controversial is it thought to enable violence from men onto women, children, gay men. Perceived by courts as "honour killing" (vindicative)

Answer 248

True.

Question 249

In order for provocation to succeed there must be:

Answer 249

criminal conduct - punishable by 5 or more years Situation deprived ordinary person of self control - killed person in period before passino cooled: (subjective)

Question 250

A person is not guilty of an offence if

Answer 250

34 (1) A person is not guilty of an offence if (a) they believe on reasonable grounds that force is being used against them or another person or that a threat of force is being made against them or another person; (b) the act that constitutes the offence is committed for the purpose of defending or protecting themselves or the other person from that use or threat of force; and (c) the act committed is reasonable in the circumstance

Question 251

For a person to not be guilty of a crime, while a person must act reasonably, it is NOT required for a person to act P_______ or P____________

Answer 251

perfectly Proportionately

Question 252

5.1) Criminal Procedure is the

Answer 252

responsibility of the police.

Question 253

Why is proactive policing somewhat controversial

Answer 253

Proactive policing is somewhat controversial as the police are perceived by public to be infringing into their personal lives.

Question 254

Responsibility for Prosecution rests largely with

Answer 254

Crown Attorney’s offices

Question 255

5.1) The responsibility of the C________ A________'s office is to achieve J________ (not Conviction, all thought often the same thing)

Answer 255

Crown Attorney's. Justice.

Question 256

Defense of those accused is lead by which type of lawyer?

Answer 256

Private.

Question 257

Most trials of criminal procedure start in the__.____.______ with more serious crimes starting in the ___.____.___.____

Answer 257

O.C.J O.S.C.J

Question 258

There are 2 types of trials: In a J______ A_____ trial, the J________ decides facts. In a jury case, the J_____ decides facts

Answer 258

Judge Alone. Judge Jury.

Question 258

Trial options are determined by the nature of the alledged offence. Three Types of Offences what are they

Answer 258

Indictable (=Felony charge) Summary Conviction (misdemeanor) Hybrid

Question 259

Summary Convictions are more serious then Indictable offences

Answer 259

FALSE. Indictable offenses are much more serioues.

Question 260

There are two trial options in Indictable offences, there are _______ _______ and _______. ( accused may also have right to preliminary inquiry) Summary Convictions are limited to one trial option which is _______ ______

Answer 260

Judge Alone. Jury. Judge Alone.

Question 261

T/F: Summary Conviction usually have light punishments

Answer 261

TRUE

Question 262

Hybrid Offences is when the P__________ gets to decide whether to proceed legally by I___________ or S__________ C___________

Answer 262

Prosecution. Indictment Summary Conviction.

Question 263

5.1) T/F Typically a crown prosecution does not want an indictment and usually picks a summary conviction (for practical reasons).

Answer 263

TRUE:

Question 264

5.2) Arbitrary Detention is what:

Answer 264

when police detain people when investigating offences. - assumes control of movements

Question 265

T/F Detainment is usually done AFTER they have grounds to arrest.

Answer 265

FALSE. "BEFORE"!

Question 266

There is only one instance of aribtirary detainment that is commonly used and police are within their rights, this is

Answer 266

Impaired Driving.

Question 267

Detain for Investigative purposes refers to

Answer 267

when police have LESS than reasonable grounds to believe the person committed an offence but MORE than no reason to believe they did.

Question 268

Detention for investigative purposes when:

Answer 268

They have reasonable grounds – reasonable suspicion Necessary in the circumstances the overall decision to detain is a reasonable one – not a high standard .

Question 269

Investigative Detention (Detainment) must be

Answer 269

DETENTION MUST BE BRIEF AND NOT A DEFACTO ARREST.

Question 270

Investigative detention can be based ona hunch.

Answer 270

FALSE.

Question 271

Investigative Search is authorized only in the purpose? They are Not authorized to search for?

Answer 271

Weapons. They are only authorized to search to find if they have weapons. (Courts have been very lenient with the police, to make very extensive) Evidence. Search must be confined in scope to locate weapons, NOT evidence; and only when the safety of him (the police officer) or others is at risk.

Question 272

5.2) When police find information of interest, they seize it, this is of concern as it can infringe upon a person's p________ and L_______ rights. As a result, they will default to prior judicial authorization in the form of W______.

Answer 272

Privacy. Liberty. Warrants.

Question 273

Warrants are issued by courts when:

Answer 273

Reasonable grounds to believe that offence has occurred and evidence of the offence will be found in the location sought to be searched.

Question 274

What authorizes Warrantless searches as per Cloutier v Langlois. However purpose of search: (SEE acronym)

Answer 274

police have power to search a lawfully arrested person and seize anything in his possession to guarantee safety of the police, prevent escape of accused, or to provide evidence against him, However, purpose of search must be to discover some valid purposes, usually a weapon, an item that will facilitate escape, or other evidence (in the case of destruction which would destroy evidence that can potentially be utilized against him).

Question 275

SEE acronym in regard to warrantless searches

Answer 275

SAFETY OF POLICE ESCAPE EVIDENCE.

Question 276

What is one place the police cannot search incident to arrest (without warrant)

Answer 276

Everything is in his control (all personal items), but not his HOME. Usually, phone searches are done right after the arrest.

Question 277

What right does section 10 (b) of the charter guarantee:

Answer 277

The right to a legal council on arrest or detention to retain and instruct counsel without delay and to be informed of that right.

Question 278

What are two duties of the Police Upon Arrest?

Answer 278

1) Informational Duties - What the detainee must be told' Implementational Duties 2) Implementational Duties - What must be done to enable the detainee to exercise her rights - Conditional on reasonable diligence of detainee.

Question 279

On arrest or detention, police must advise the detainee.

Answer 279

She has the right to retain and instruct counsel - Without delay (as soon as reasonably possible) - Opportunity to obtain counsel free of charge. (legal aid)

Question 280

The Police also have the Duty to F_______ access to council for those arrested.

Answer 280

Facilitate.

Question 281

The police have a duty to H_____ O_____ questioning or otherwise attempt to elicit evidence until she has had a reasonable opportunity to retain and instruct counsel.

Answer 281

HOLD OFF

Question 282

Implementation Duties of Police dissapear as soon as the accused has waived reasonable diligence of availing herself of her rights

Answer 282

if she does not indicate she wants to contact counsel of her choice.

Question 283

Lesson 5: right to Silence, Detainee has a constitutional right to C_______ whether or not to speak. They have the right for their silenece to not be used A_______ them.

Answer 283

Choose. Against.

Question 284

T/F) The right to silence is an absolute right.

Answer 284

FALSE

Question 285

T/F Reamaining silent Does not mean questioning needs to stop.

Answer 285

TRUE>

Question 286

In Regard to the right to remain silent, Police CANNOT

Answer 286

Threaten detainee with violence / adverse consequences if she does not speak Promise a reduced sentence if detainee does confess. Create oppression (deprive right to food, water, clothing, etc.) Mental abuse Manipulate or pose to be someone else.

Question 287

T/F: Police ARE required to inform the detainee of right to silence?

Answer 287

False. Counsel's Duty

Question 288

5.6) a person who charter rights are breach can apply to have E__________ E_________ From trial.

Answer 288

Evidence Excluded

Question 289

As a general rule, evidence is more likely to be excluded when

Answer 289

- Police ignore their limitations - Unlawfully interfere with the privacy, dignity or autonomy of the accused - Evidence is of questionable liability.

Question 290

International Law is concerned with

Answer 290

RIGHTS and OBLIGATIONS

Question 291

In Intarnational Law, basic actors are S_______. It is law B_________ S________.

Answer 291

States Between States.

Question 292

Qatar v Bahrain Case Facts Chat GPT

Answer 292

Qatar v. Bahrain refers to a long-running territorial and maritime dispute between the State of Qatar and the Kingdom of Bahrain, which was adjudicated by the International Court of Justice (ICJ). The case is officially titled Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions between Qatar and Bahrain (Qatar v. Bahrain) and the ICJ delivered its judgment on March 16, 2001. Case Background: Territorial Dispute: The dispute primarily involved sovereignty over several islands, maritime boundary delimitation, and the status of certain low-tide elevations in the Gulf region. The contested areas included the Hawar Islands, Fasht al Azm, Qit'at Jaradah, and the maritime areas surrounding them. Historical Claims: Qatar and Bahrain both laid historical claims to these territories, dating back to treaties and interactions with British authorities during the colonial period in the 19th and early 20th centuries. The dispute intensified post-independence, leading to a series of diplomatic efforts, including unsuccessful attempts at bilateral negotiations. ICJ Proceedings: Submission to the ICJ: In 1991, Qatar brought the case before the ICJ, seeking resolution of the territorial and maritime disputes. The ICJ had to determine the sovereignty over disputed islands and the maritime boundary between the two states. ICJ's Jurisdiction: The Court confirmed its jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute and proceeded to examine the historical evidence and legal arguments presented by both parties. Supreme Court Ruling: On March 16, 2001, the ICJ delivered its judgment, addressing the various claims and counterclaims. Key Points of the Ruling: Sovereignty over Islands: Hawar Islands: The ICJ awarded sovereignty over the Hawar Islands to Bahrain. The Court considered historical treaties and the actual exercise of authority over the islands. Zubarah: The Court confirmed that Zubarah, located on the Qatar peninsula, is part of Qatar. Other Islands and Features: The ICJ determined the sovereignty of several other islands and maritime features, awarding some to Bahrain and others to Qatar based on historical usage and evidence. Maritime Boundary Delimitation: The Court delimited the maritime boundary between Qatar and Bahrain, taking into account principles of international maritime law, including equidistance and equitable principles. This delimitation aimed to ensure an equitable solution that would allow both states to exercise their sovereign rights and jurisdiction over the relevant maritime areas. Significance: The Qatar v. Bahrain case is significant for several reasons: Peaceful Resolution of Disputes: The case is an example of how states can resolve complex territorial and maritime disputes through peaceful means and international legal mechanisms. International Jurisprudence: The judgment contributed to the body of international jurisprudence on maritime boundary delimitation and the legal status of islands and low-tide elevations. Stability in the Gulf Region: By resolving the dispute, the ICJ's judgment helped promote stability and cooperation between Qatar and Bahrain, although it took time for the relations to improve fully. Overall, the Qatar v. Bahrain case demonstrates the role of the International Court of Justice in resolving international disputes and the importance of adhering to international legal principles and mechanisms for dispute resolution.

Question 293

There are four (three formal, one interpretive) aspects of the Internation Court of Justice's function, these are to establish

Answer 293

Conventions (treaties and rules) Customs General principles Interpretative - most highly qualified publicist.

Question 294

International law means (treaties and customary international law) What does a treaty mean? What does CIL mean?

Answer 294

Treaties: International Agreements concluded between states and written form and governed by international law. Customary International Law: - established widespread consisten practice on the part of states. - belief practice is obligatory as a matter of law

Question 295

Bilateral, Multilateral, Plurilateral treatments

Answer 295

Bilateral - two countries (Canada +1) Multilateral - three or more countries Plurilateral agreement with Canada and a group of States - ex. Canada EU agreement

Question 296

When was United Nations Charter Written and what did it promote.

Answer 296

UN Charter (1945) à promote higher standards of living, universal human rights.

Question 297

What are two steps of binding a treaty.

Answer 297

1. Signature - to express political support 2. Ratification - to express agreement in a legally binding way.

Question 298

What is the monism vs Dualism approaches to international law

Answer 298

Monism: the law is immediately incorporated as part of the state's domestic law. - International law may apply continuously in the country Dualism: there is a strict separation between International and domestic spheres of law. - International law may apply to discrete subject matters.