Section 1

Question 1

Section 1

Edward Books v The Queen

Answer 1

A more deferential or ‘reasonableness’ approach is appropriate in the Oakes analysis.

Question 2

Section 1

Alberta v Hutterian Brethren

Answer 2

Changed the methodology of Oakes. But more emphasis on the proportionality step. Applied a more deferential approach.

Question 3

Section 1

Quebec v A

Answer 3

A section 1 Analysis, the court split on the issue. Ultimate the majority upheld the infringement under s.1

Question 4

Section 1

Loyola v Quebec

Answer 4

A s.2(a) infringement was found, and it was not found justifiable under s.1

Question 5

Section 1

Carter v Canada

Answer 5

Built upon the s.1 analysis considering a section 7 claim.

Question 6

Section 1

Canada v Bedford

Answer 6

Elaborates on the relationship between section 7 and section 1.

Question 7

Section 1

Chaoulli v Quebec

Answer 7

Gave more insight into when more deference should be afforded to the government.