Introduction to The Constitution

Question 1

Section 91

Answer 1

Section 91 of the Constitution Act, 1867, outlines the exclusive powers of the federal government (Parliament of Canada).
It includes powers related to areas such as trade and commerce, taxation, banking, postal services, defense, and criminal law.
These powers are enumerated in a way that gives the federal government authority over issues of national concern.

Question 2

Section 92

Answer 2

Outlines provincial powers encompass matters such as education, health care, property and civil rights, and local government.
This section establishes the provinces’ jurisdiction over issues that primarily affect their residents.

Question 3

Section 93 :

Answer 3

Section 93 pertains to education and school systems in Canada.
It addresses denominational schools, minority rights, and language education.
The section provides protection for the rights of religious and linguistic minorities to have their own separate schools.

Question 4

RJR- MacDonald v. Canada

Answer 4

Facts: Tobacco Products Control Act came into effect January 1, 1989, regulated advertisement of tobacco products and health warnings. RJR -MacDonald Inc. a tobacco products company challenged the constitutional validity, stating that it was ultra vires because it violated freedom of expression in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ,

Descion: supreme court ruled it was intra vires since the pith and substance of the law was criminal law which is under the juristicion of the federal govt. but they agreed that it violated the charter rights and freedoms right to freedom of expression

Question 5

R v Comeau

Answer 5

Gérard Comeau was fined after the RCMP caught him with 14 cases of beer and three bottles of spirits from Quebec. The province has a limit on liquor purchased outside its borders.
The Supreme Court of Canada ruled unanimously that New Brunswick was within its rights to fine Mr. Comeau.
The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled to maintain the status quo on interprovincial trade, including the sale of alcohol.

Question 6

BNA Act

Answer 6

Canada became a country in 1867, when the provinces of Canada (now Ontario and Quebec), New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia were united under the terms of the British North America Act.
The BNA Act was passed by the British parliament in March 1867.
The Act was a piece of British legislation, since it concerned British colonies. It had, however, been drawn up by the Canadian Fathers of Confederation to serve as the written constitution for the new dominion that the Act created.
This act provided Canada with its first constitutional rules and specified a distribution of powers between the different levels of government.

Question 7

Statute of Westminster

Answer 7

1931 - Canada gained full legal autonomy from Britain. Canada gains full control over their foreign affairs.

Question 8

Treaty of Versailles

Answer 8

1918 - Prime Minister Borden would sign the peace treaty that concludes the war. This begins the move toward greater independence for Canada.

Question 9

JCPC

Answer 9

The highest court of appeal in Canada was the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (JCPC) J.C.P.C. located in London, England. in Canada existed from 1867 to 1949,

Question 10

Meech Lake Accord

Answer 10

In 1987, at Meech Lake near Ottawa, Prime Minister Mulroney managed to get all 10 provincial premiers to agree to a constitutional package based on these proposals.
The new deal, the Meech Lake Accord, would recognize Quebec as a “distinct society” and would give the provinces more power relative to the federal government.
Some of the changes included giving the provinces the right to supply nominees for the Senate and the Supreme Court. It is not surprising that all provinces agreed with enhancing their constitutional power.
Critics of the accord included former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, who saw any type of special recognition of Quebec as a “distinct society” as being unnecessary and dangerous.
Aboriginal leaders were also upset at the lack of consultation with them over the proposed changes, and the fact that the accord did not address Aboriginal concerns.
The Meech Lake Accord would not be passed.

Question 11

Charlottetown Accord

Answer 11

In 1992, a new proposal, called the Charlottetown Accord, was put before the people of Canada in a national referendum.
The Charlottetown Accord, like the Meech Lake Accord, dealt with a number of constitutional issues including the division of powers in such areas as forestry, mining, and cultural affairs.
In general, the Charlottetown Accord enhanced provincial power so that, for example, the federal power of disallowance was abolished.
This time, Aboriginal concerns were addressed, including the issue of Aboriginal self-governemnt.
The new accord would also make changes to the Supreme Court by formally entrenching the composition and appointment process.
The Senate would be changed from an appointed body to an elected body having equal representation from each of the provinces.
The Charlottetown Accord, like its predecessor, was doomed: it was defeated in six provinces and one territory.

Question 12

Amending Formula

Answer 12

Definition: a way to change parts of a constitution when its member constituencies – in this case, the Canadian provinces – agree to do so.
Constitutional amending formulas commonly have a minimum proportion of members – such as two-thirds or three-quarters – who must agree before a change can be made.

Question 13

Constitution Act, 1982

Answer 13

The 1982 amendments and additions to the constitution, which included the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and an amending formula, are known as the Constitution Act, 1982.

Question 14

Bill of Rights (1960)

Answer 14

came into effect in 1960 and was Canada’s first federal law to protect individual rights and freedoms
it was a legislative enactment instead of a constitutional one, meaning that it could be more easily amended or repealed by a simple majority vote in parliament
guaranteed freedom of speech, religion, and right to life, liberty and security of the persosn. Not having constiutional status meant that it was limited in it’s power to strike down unconstitutional laws or government actions

Question 15

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

Answer 15

includes additional rights not covered in the bill of rights such as right to a fair trial, protection from unreasonable search and seizure, and the right to an interpreter in criminal proceedings
has the ability to invalidate or strike down unconstitutional laws and government action This power is known as judicial review

Question 16

section 1 limiting clause

Answer 16

Section 1 states “reasonable limits prescribed by the law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
Acknowledging that the charter protect rights but these rights can be limited if the limitation is reasonable. The limitation must serve a pressing and substantial objective, be rational connected to that objective, and minimally impair the charter right.

Question 17

section 33 notwithstanding clause

Answer 17

allows the federal government or provincial government to override certain rights and freedoms, thye can pass laws that explicitly state they will be operating with teh “notwithstanding clause”
available for section 2 (fundamental freedoms) 7-15 (legal rights) 2 (official languages of Canada)
some charter rights are immune to notwithstanding clause including 3(right to vote), 5 (right to fair trial), 6 (mobility rights)
effective for up to five years

Question 18

r v oakes

Answer 18

facts
Oakes charged with a small amount of marijuana which was a criminal ofense under the Narcotics Control Act
Argued law was unconstitutional since violated section 7 (right to life, liberty and security of the person) and section 11 ( right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty)
ruling
SCC provided framework for assessing the reasonableness of limitation of a Charter right under section 1 known as the Oakes test.
serve a pressing and substantial objective, such as a valid legislative goal
means used to achieve object must be rationally connected to objective
minimally impair the freedom and right,
benefits of achieving objective must outweigh the effects of charter right
result
Narcotics Control Act was struck down, meaning that people found in possession of narcotics were presumed innocent

Question 19

r v zundel

Answer 19

published a 32 page booklet entitled “Did 6 million really die?”, holocaust denial. Zundel was charged under section 181 of the charter with willfully publishing false information that was likely to cause injury or mischeif issue: Does section 181 violate setion 2b and 7 of the charter, and if so is it a reasonable limit under section 1, the SCC ruled that section 181 was unconstitutional, it is too broad and fails the proportionality test (it is more invasive than necessary to achieve it’s object)

Question 20

r v keegstra

Answer 20

Keegstra was a high school teacher who taught his students that the Holocaust was not real and that Jews were “power hungry” and “money loving.”
He was charged under s. 319(2) of the Criminal Code, which prohibits willfully promoting hatred against an identifiable group. He argued that this law violated his right to freedom of expression guaranteed in s.2(b) of the Charter.
DECISION:
The Crown appealed this decision to the Supreme Court of Canada.
In a 4–3 decision, the Court upheld the Crown’s appeal.
All seven judges agreed that the hate law violated s.2(b) of the Chater, but the majority of the Court believed this violation of Charter rights could be justified under s.1.

Question 21

A.B. v. Bragg

Answer 21

A.B. was a 15-year-old girl from Nova Scotia. She discovered that someone had posted a fake Facebook profile of her under a slightly different name.
The IP address belonged to an individual who subscribed to internet services through a company owned by Bragg Communications.
A.B. applied to the court to have Bragg reveal the identity of the persons associated with the IP address.
A.B. wanted to minimize her chance of suffering further harm from bullying, so she asked to bring her application anonymously.
A.B. also asked that the Court impose a publication ban on the contents of the fake Facebook profile, meaning that the media would not be permitted to publish details contained in the account.
The court denied A.B.’s request for anonymity or a publication ban. The court reasoned that there was no evidence that A.B. would be harmed if this information were released.
DECISION:
The Supreme Court of Canada unanimously decided this: Bragg was ordered to disclose the identity of the person(s) who created the fake Facebook account, and A.B. was allowed to proceed with her claim anonymously. However, the Court did not preclude the press from publishing the non-identifying information found in the fake Facebook profile.
The SCC found that while an open court and freedom of the press are central to our court system, protection from cyberbullying can justify restricting them.

Question 22

Children’s Aid Case

Answer 22

A newborn required a blood transfusion as part of an examination and operation for suspected glaucoma. The parents refused consent because blood transfusions were contrary to their religious beliefs.
The parents appealed to the Court of Appeal: the Appeal was dismissed.

Question 23

Chaoulli v. Quebec

Answer 23

A 73 year-old needed a hope replacement and heart surgery. After being on the waiting list for nearly a year before securing pain-relieving hip surgery, he and his doctor, Jacques Chaoulli, took his case to court, challenging the constitutionality of s.11 of Quebec’s Hospital Insurance Act and s. 15 of the Health Insurance Act, which prohibits private health insurance in Quebec.
The 73 year old argued that these provisions violated s. 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and s. 1 of the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees that “every human being has a right to life, and to personal security, inviolability and freedom.”
DECISION:
The SCC ruled that the ban on private health insurance in Quebec was a constitutional violation and hence was void and unenforceable. In striking down the Quebec prohibition on private health insurance, the court ruled that the public system has failed to deliver medical care in a timely, reliable manner.

Question 24

Carter v. Canada

Answer 24

Taylor was diagnosed with ALS and challenged the constitutionality of Criminal Code provisions ss.14 and 241(b) which prohibited assistance in dying. Carter, a friend of the family, argued that the Criminal Code violated sections 7 and 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
DECISION:
The SCC unanimously struck down the Criminal Code prohibition on assisted suicide, holding that ss.14 and 241(b) of thw Criminal Code were overbroad, and therefore contrary to the s.7 of the Charter, in a way that cannot be justified by s.1.

Question 25

A.C. v. Manitoba

Answer 25

A.C. was 15 years-old and diagnosed with Crohn’s disease. Her and her family did not want her to have a blood transfusion because of their religious beliefs. However, her doctor believed that her internal bleeding posed serious risks to her health and perhaps her life, and felt that a blood transfusion was necessary.
Three psychiatrists examined her and reported that A.C. was “alert and cooperative” and said that she “understands her disease and what is happening.”
Manitoba’s Director of Child and Family Services apprehended her as a child in need of protection under the Child and Family Services Act, which enables courts to order medical treatment “in the best interests” of children under the age of 16. A court order was obtained and A.C. was successfully given three units of blood.
A.C. and her parents appealed this order after her recovery, arguing that her rights under Charter ss. 2(a), 7, and 15 were violated.
DECISION:
The majority of the SCC rejected A.C. ‘s arguments and upheld the Manitoba legislation but said that courts must consider the maturity and decision-making abilities of minors when ruling on forced treamtment.

Question 26

Vriend Case

Answer 26

Vriend was fired by the Christian college he worked at because he was gay.
Vriend filed a complaint with the Alberta Human Rights Commission on the basis that his employer had discriminated against him because of his sexual orientation.
DECISION:
The Supreme Court held that the sections of the IRPA were unconstitutional and that sexual orientation should be read into the IRPA as a protected ground.

Question 27

Law v. Canada

Answer 27

Nancy Law was thirty years old when her husband passed away.
She applied for a pension as the surviving spouse of a wage-earner who had died. However, her application was denied because she did not meet the eligibility criteria.
Under section 44(1) of the CPP, a surviving spouse is
entitled to a pension when his or her spouse dies only if a number of conditions have been met.
The surviving spouse must be either a) over thirty-five years of age; b) have dependent children to support; or c) be disabled. Nancy Law did not meet any of these criteria.
She challenged this denial as a constituting discrimination on the basis of age, contrary to s. 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
DECISION:
The SCC found that the age distinction did not violate Ms. Law’s rights, because the CPP did not violate her human dignity.
As a person under the age of 35 is more capable of finding work and becoming financially independent than someone older or someone who is disabled.
Therefore, the denial of Ms. Law’s application for a survivor’s pension under the CPP did not violate the Charter.