Unit 3 Charter of rights and freedom Flashcards
FIDO about Brian Banks Case
Section 11 Presumption of Innocence
Facts:
- in 2002 brian banks a famously known football player in highschool was convicted of kidnapping and raping his female classmate
- when finding evidence they found no physical evidence meaning that there was no DNA traced back to Brian Banks
- he was forced to plea guilty even though he was innocent
- later on his accuser withdrew her accusation
- this was done with the help of the California Innocence Project and his conviction was overturned in 2012
- he later then pursued his dream
Issues:
- wrongful conviction: was convicted and imprisoned for a crime he didn’t do
- barely to none legal representation: lawyer probably didn’t provide a strong defense
- he was also pressured to plea guilty even though he was innocent
Decisions:
- initially convicted and sentenced to prison
- conviction was overturned due to his accuser’s withdraw
FIDO about R.V.Whyte Case
Section 11 Presumption of Innocence
Facts:
- in a 1983 British Columbia case, Ronald James Whyte was found slumped over the steering wheel of a parked vehicle
- the engine was not running, but the car was warm, the dash lights were on and the ignition was switched on
- police believed that Whyte was in care and control of the vehicle while being impaired by alcohol
Issues:
- there was no evidence if Whyte was actually driving or not
- this challenges presumption of innocence
- Whyte argued that by simply being in the divers’ seat should not imply guilt
Decisions:
- the court agreed saying that being in the driver’s seat isn’t enough which means that they upheld the presumption of innocence
- the police still needs to find other clues like finding someone else in the car on top of this they also need other concrete evidence
- overall this appeal was dismissed
Fido about Pandori case
Section 2 of freedom of religion
Facts:
- Harbhajan Singh Pandori, a sikh student, wanted to wear a Kirpan ( a religious dagger) to school
- the peel board of education had a policy of prohibiting weapons on school grounds
Issues:
- does the school board’s no weapon policy violate pandori’s right to practice his religion freely?
Decisions:
- the ontario human rights commission ruled in favor of Pandori
- a tribunal allowed the wearing of the kirpan with limitations (reasonable size and should be concealed under clothing)
FIDO about Anvari Case
Section 2 of freedom of religion
Facts:
- Anvari a teacher in Quebec was fired for wearing a hijab
- this sparked protests from students, staff, and politicians like Justin Trudeau, and Jagmeet Singh
- Justin Trudeau said that no one should lose their job because of their religion
- in Quebec political leaders have defended bill 21 which bans teachers and public servants from wearing religious symbols
Issues:
- whether or not Bill 21 is a violation of religious freedom
- the federal government intervening in provincial matters
Decisions:
- Anvari was fired from her job
- the courts upheld bill 21
Fido about R.V.Kapp
Section 15 of equality rights
Facts:
- the federal government implemented an Aboriginal fisheries strategies to increase aboriginal involvement in commercial fishing
- this strategy included granting them exclusive access to the river for a 24hr period
- a group of non aboriginal people ignored the fishing period and continued fishing
- they later said that the communal license discriminated them
Issues:
- did the communal fishing license really violate section 15 of the charter?
- does section 25 of the charter create an exception to section 15 in the case?
Decisions:
- the trial court agreed and that the communal was discriminatory
- the court of appeal however overturned the trial court decision saying that the communal license was constitutional
FIDO about Roe V Wade
Section 15 of equality rights
Facts:
- the lawsuit happened in 1973 where an unmarried pregnant women wanted an abortion but could not
- the state argued that it protects all life even an unborn child
Roe claimed that the state had violated her liberty under 14th amendment
Issues:
- does the constitution recognize a women’s right to terminate her pregnancy by abortion
Decisions:
- they decided to make it legal to get a abortion in the first 12 weeks of a pregnancy
- the federal right was overturned in 2022
FIDO about Walter Mc Millian
Section 12 of cruel and unusual punishment
Facts:
- Walter Mc Millian was wrongly convicted of murdering a young white women in Alabama
- the trial was rushed lasting only a day and a half
- Mc Millian was convicted based on unreliable testimony
Issues:
- how was he convicted of a crime especially the death penalty when the trial only lasted a day and a half with the bare minimum of concrete evidence
Decisions:
- death penalty but at first the jury recommended life imprisonment
- after 6 years someone rechecked the case and revoked the sentence
FIDO about R.V Morrisey
Section 12 of cruel and unusual punishment
Facts:
- convicted of criminal negligence of causing death with firearm
- he killed his friend
- it was an accident
Issues:
- for killing someone by accident in an attempt to save him 4 years is a cruel punishment
Decisions:
- 4 years of prison sentence which was then revoked to two years
FIDO about R.V Appulonappa
Section 7 of life, liberty, and security
Facts:
- 4 accused (appulonappa & crew) where the captain & crew members of a ship intercepted off the coast of vancouver island
- The ship carried 76 sri lankan tamils all seeking asylum in Canada with no proper documentation
- All passengers and some crew initiated refugee claims
- Paid or promised to pay ($40,000-$30,000) for trip
- The accused organised a trip were human smuggling was involved
Issues:
- Did this violate section 117 of the immigration & refugee act & did it also violate section 7?
Decisions:
- Section 117 was unconstitutional, it applied to:
- Families assisting undocumented relatives to enter Canada
- Humanitarian worker providing aid
- S7:ability to assist vulnerable people seeking refuge
FIDO about R.V Stinchcombe
Section 7 of life, liberty, and security
Facts:
- William Stinchcombe a lawyer charged with theft, fraud, & trust
- During the preliminary inquiry (a hearing to determine if there is enough evidence for a trial) a former secretary testifies to support defence
- The defence lawyer wanted access to the statement the secretary made, but the Crown refused
Issues:
- Did the Crown have a duty to disclose statements made by the secretary to the defence even though they weren’t used in court?
Decisions:
- The Supreme court ruled in favour for Stinchcombe
- The court stated that the Crown must disclose all evidence whether it is being used for not, because a fair trial needs full disclosure
FIDO about R.V. AM
Section 8 of unreasonable search and seizure
Facts:
- The principal at St.Patrick high school had giving the police a invitation to search anyone
- Nov. 7 2002, the police had brought a sniff dog to search the school, but they had no reason to do a search
- When the sniffer dog was at the gym he detected drugs in one of the bags
- The bag belonged to AM, which contained many different types of drugs
- AM was arrested in possession of drugs (identified by a wallet in the bag)
Issues:
- Did the police possess the legal power to use drug sniffer dogs? If so, are there limitations to this power?
- Did the use of the drug-sniffing dog in these circumstances amount to a “search” under section 8 of the Charter?
- If it was considered a “search”, was there a violation of A.M.’s section 8 right?
- If there was a section 8 violation, should the evidence be excluded in the criminal case against A.M.?
Decisions:
- The majority agreed that there was a violation within S8
- The evidence is not included in the criminal case
- The decision gives the police and schools guidance on how to protect students privacy and ensure safe environments
FIDO about R.V Keegstra
section 2(b) of freedom of expression
Facts:
- Mr. James Keegstra was a high school teacher in Eckville, Alberta from the early 1970s until his dismissal in 1982.
- In 1984 Mr. Keegstra was charged under the Criminal Code with unlawfully promoting hatred against an identifiable group by communicating anti-semitic statements to his students.
- Mr. Keegstra’s teachings attributed various evil qualities to Jews. He thus described Jews to his pupils as “treacherous”, “subversive”, “sadistic”, “money-loving”, “power hungry” and “child killers”.
Issues:
- Did Keegstra’s action violate his own rights to free speech? (2b)
- Does the law prohibiting hate speech create an unreasonable limit on freedom of expression?
Decisions:
- Keegstra was convicted after a trial and the courts rejected his argument that hate speech violated his freedom of expression
- The Supreme Court of Canada rules against Keesgtra because:
- Canada’s free speech law had a limit on hate speech
- While free speech is protected, it does protect the promotion of hate speech against a group of people
FIDO about UFCW local 1518 V KMart Canada
section 2(b) of freedom of expression
Facts:
- A union (united food & commercial workers, local 1518) was on strike against KMart Canada Ltd
- Union members wanted to distribute flyers outside of their primary & secondary locations
- KMart obtained an order prohibiting the union from leafleting at these secondary sites
Issues:
- Did the order restricting the unions leafleting activity violate their right to freedom of speech?
Decisions:
- The supreme court of canada ruled in favour of the union because:
- The restriction on leafleting at the secondary locations did violate the unions right of freedom of speech
- The charter protects the right to communicate labour disputes to the public
FIDO about R.V. Oakes
Facts:
- David Edward Oakes, was in possession of narcotics for the purpose of trafficking
- Mr. Oakes told the police that he had bought ten vials of hashish oil for $150 for his own use, and that the $619.45 was from a workers’ compensation cheque. He elected not to call evidence as to
possession of the narcotic. - The trial judge proceeded to make a finding that it was beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Oakes was in possession of the narcotic - Following this finding, he imposed a burden on an accused to prove that he or she was not in possession for the purpose of trafficking.
Issues:
- Does s.8 of the Narcotic Control Act impose a presumption of guilt in violation of s. 11(d) of the Charter?
Decisions:
- the appeal was dismissed
What is the R.V. Oakes test
also used in R.V Smith
The R.V Oakes test was also used in the R.V smith case where the court had to figure out if there was a reasonable purpose for restricting a charter right.
The court basically does a three part test to identify this and this mainly relates to proportionality which is:
1) must be fair
2) there has to be a rational objective
3) and there should be minimal impairment
