The flashcards below were created by user judeness on FreezingBlue Flashcards.

  1. Canadian Western Bank v. Alberta, [2007 ] 2 S.C.R. 3-
    interjurisdictional immunity
  2. Quebec (Attorney General) v. Canadian Owners and Pilots Association, SCC [2010] , also referred to as Quebec v. COPA
    leading case of the Supreme Court of Canada on determining the applicability of the doctrines of interjurisdictional immunity and federal paramountcy in Canadian constitutional law.
  3. Quebec (Attorney General) v. Lacombe, 2010 SCC 38, [2010] 2 S.C.R. 453
    (majority only decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the nature of the ancillary powers that arise from the doctrine of pith and substance in Canadian constitutional law.
  4. R v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd (1985) SCC
    Still the leading decision on freedom of religion, but now supplemented by Amselem
  5. GM v. CNL 1989 SCC-
    Sets out 5 factors for determining whether fed legislation qualifies as a valid exercise of the general regulation of trade power, GRT [second branch of s.91.2]
  6. Lego v. Megablocks (Kirkbi AG v. Ritvik Holdings Ltd.)2005
    Freeriding trademark on this goodwill is known as “passing off” and is a tort
  7. Parsons aka Citizens Insurance v. Parsons (1881) (SCC/PC)-
    insurance company argues that Ont leg regulating insurance contracts is ultra vires- this is a K matter that provs can deal with, not a trade and commerce matter
  8. Labatt Breweries v. AG Canada (1980) (SCC)
    Labatt challenging federal Food and Drugs Act that regulates min & max alcohol content in light beers-6-3 decision: ultra vires because this is mostly intraprovincial trade
  9. Nova Scotia Pharmaceutical aka R. v Nova Scotia Pharmaceutical Society 1992 SCC
    -principle of fundamental justice that laws not be too vague.
  10. Andrews v. Law Society of B.C. 1989 SCC
    • -s.15 violated-P,permanent resident meets req for admin to Bar, challenges the citizenship req for membership in the legal profession set out in BC legislation. Non-citz=Analagous ground. Viol s.15, NS by s.1
    • HELD-not a reasonable limit pursuant to s.1; the citizenship requirement was declared of no force and effect
  11. Campbell V. Canada 1988
    -it was held that a provision to protect the representation of declining provinces should not be regarded as offending the principle a proportionate representation-the act was to be characterized as a law in relation to the House of Commons; and it was a valid exercise of the federal parliament's unilateral amending power under S. 44.
  12. Alberta v. Hutterian Brethren of Wilson Colony, 2009 SCC
    (4-3 decision upholding validity of photo requirement for drivers' licenses in Alberta; majority found violation of s.2(a) justified pursuant to s.1)
  13. Vriend v. Alberta, [1998]
    Iacobucci J., paragraphs 129-179/ Charter Applies-Charter does apply to legislative silence (legislative omissions).Discrimination was a failure to mention sex orientation. SCC held that the silence of the legislature in this context was reviewable and that the Charter did authorize a court to look at a stat provision and hold that a failure to deal with a certain subject matter was in violation of the Charter. Having held that Charter applies, they went on to consider whether there was a violation of s. 15. Yes there was, and it couldn’t be saved by s. 1>s. 32 doesn’t say anything about positive acts, it only matters that issue is w/I authority of the legislature. An omission can be argued as positive. *Arg-Charter shouldn’t apply where gov’t merely fails to act. Charter used to modify statute to ovverride CL. Failure to prohibit discrimination bear more heavily on group which historically suffers from discrimination in society.
  14. Charkaoui v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), [2007]
    s.7(security certificates): scheme allowed ministers to deport ppl on basis of certain confidential info that was not to be disclosed to person in Q nor anyone acting in their interest (here violated fair procedure and not min. impairing)>vio. S. 7, NS by s. 1/ Where person faces detention they must have procedural fairness/right to fair trial/ Issues of national security are only considered in s.1, and even then, violations of LLSP cannot be easily justified under the Oakes test
  15. Law v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1999 SCC)
    s.15 due to age P’s husband dies when she is 30yrs, CPP only kicks in for smone 35yrs+. She gets no recovery based on new LAW TEST-yes age is E but doesn’t affect HumDig
  16. Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Quebec (AG) [1989] SCC
    s.2b-challenge by toy manu against Que law that prohibits advertisements to be directed at children below a certain age. Commercial speech = is protected by Charter. BUT saved by s.1  deference to the legislature
  17. R. v. Keegstra 1990 SCC:
    s.2b teacher in Alb using hate speech in classes; fired from job. There are 3 VALUES that speak to FOE: demo pol participation, market ideas, personal self-fulfillment violated s. 2(b), NS by s.1
  18. Ford v. Quebec [1988] SCC
    -s.2b consti of language restrictions wrt s. 2(b) during time b/w CA82 coming into force and s. 33 bill being passed. Choice of lang = closely linked w/ express content
  19. RJR Macdonald Inc. v. Canada [1995]:
    s.2b Tobacco ad band and req of unattributed health warning. S. 2(b) includes right to be SILENT. Gove must still make effort to argue under Oakes.
  20. Committee for Commonwealth:
    s.2b political pamphlets in airport. Public Space test: Functional v. Underlying Values
  21. Thompson Newspapers Co. v. Canada [1998] SCC:
    s.2b Challenge to Elections Act wrt ban on publication of poll results in days b/f election. Look @ nature of legs and nature of activity to inform Oakes Test normal O
  22. Montreal:
    s.2b strip club that blasts music & commentary onto street in contravention of noise bylaw. Func & Underlying values test should be MERGED
  23. Gosselin 2002 SCC
    s.7 (welfare schemes): under 30 got less $ if they didn’t participate in govt programs > s. 7 used to restrain govnt from positively infringing on ppl’s LLSP rather than requiring govts to actively do things that would provide a certain level supporting ppl’s LLSP > no vio of s.7; s. 7 traditioanlly for admin of justice and negative way BUT might use s.7 outside of this category on a case-by-case basisNature of the Right: There are two potential ways to construct the guarantee under s.7 gives law enforcements too much discretion. Leads to arbitrary enforcement. Discretion might result in discrimination, be exercised inappropriately
  24. Chaoulli v Quebec (2005) (SCC)
    s.7( (health care): s. 7 applied outside admin of justice  law = arbitrary: violated right to L + SP, NS by s. 1
  25. Turpin:
    s.15-T charged w/ murder. Wants trial by judge alone. In Alb may opt for this. Province of charge ≠ A ground
  26. Hess/Nguyen:
    s.15-D’s charged w/ rape. Biological differences b/w men and women ≠ A ground
  27. Weatherall:
    s.15-P is inmate. Argues that females guards that can search males but not vice versa is dicrim. Social realities ≠ Analogous ground
  28. M v H:
    s.15-M & H LT same sex rln. M wants support. Argues FLA’s def of spouse is discrim. FLA violates s. 15  read up to incl sm sex
  29. Corbiere v. Canada, [1999]
    s.15-Enumerated and Analogous Grounds. P member of Indian band, living off reserve. Barred from voting in band elects. Aboriginal/Residency=A ground Vio. S. 15, NS by s.1
  30. BCGEU v. British Columbia:
    s.15-B.C. passed stnd for firefighters. Most women don’t pass test. Universal standard = adverse effect discrim against women, NS by s. 1  bona fide job req?
  31. Lavoie v. Canada, 2002
    s.15-P brings action against fed govt over policy favouring Canadian citz. S. 15 vio, but saved by s.1  once A, always A! citizenship found to be sufficiently important objective Less stringent approach to section 1 more like McIntyre’s dissent, than Wilson’s maj.
  32. Malmo-Levine 2003 SCC)
    –s.7- FJ (must be a legal principle, must be sufficiently clear & precise, must be sufficient societal consensus that principle is fundamentalbestiality, incest.
  33. Dagenais-s.7
    -Salutary v. Deleterious Effects
  34. Vaillancourt:
    s.7-Over Breadth-murder was defined in a way that allowed for an objective Mens Rea. Lamer – given the seriousness of murder, it carries a heavy penalty and stigma. Provisions ought not be overly broad in the sense that they include conducts which are not really of the kind that this offense merits.
  35. Reference re Section 94(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act (BC)-
    s.7 Provision violating principle of FJ (Arbitrariness) Innocent should not be punished, Because s.7 has a limit in the form of “fundamental justice” reference, any attempt to save a full violation of the section under s.1 would be very difficult. It would need something as extreme and temporary as war, plague, or natural disaster. Absolute liability ALWAYS violates principles of FJ and if liberty is threatened = violation of s. 7
  36. Schachter v. Canada [1992] SCC-
    s. 52 remedies of reading in, severing and temporary suspension of a declaration of invalidity in the case of under-inclusive legislation
  37. Dunmore-
    s.7: holds that the Charter does apply, and allows court to scrutinize the repeal of the 1994 ALRA, and restriction in LRA, 1995. It holds that s. 3(b) of the 1995 Act violates freedom of association, in that it doesn’t provide agricultural workers with the concrete ability that it needs to form unions and to engage in collective bargaining. The failure cannot be justified under s.1 That silence is made explicit in s. 3(b). BUT this provision says “does not apply”. It doesn’t say agr workers “cannot form a union, are forbidden to strike”. In line with CA in Blainey, and in line with reasoning in Vriend,>when private relations are governed by the CL, it is still possible to get Charter review worked in if we argue that government inaction in not entering into a given area to cure some CL defect is itself unconstitutional, requiring a legislative cure. (determined on a case-by-case basis) “It should be noted that this court’s understanding of state action has matured since DD case and may mature further in light of evolving Charter values”This is area of deficiency which needs to be remedied if freedom of association is going to mean something concretely on the ground, for agricultural workers.
  38. Re Blainey and Ontario Hockey Association:
    hockey, NO the Charter Doesn’t Apply (Government) severing was appropriate since it had the effect of extending sex discrimination protection.) If phrased positively, claimant would have a remedy Argument in Blainey: when court says that the Charter applies so as to permit a court to override s. 19(2) on basis of Charter, it is saying that the CL should be changed.
  39. Dolphin Delivery:
    Charter doesn’t apply to CL of private individuals
  40. Pepsi Cola:
    CONC: NO the Charter Doesn’t Apply (Government)secondary picketing law is out of synch with Charter values-like a sequel to Dolphin D -overturns Dolphin: secondary picketing is per se lawful unless there is some harm if statute is silent, CL should apply. Use Charter values to inform Common Law. Reinterpreted common law values regarding picketing in light of Charter values, found that secondary picketing was allowed if it was not tortious
  41. UFCW v Kmart
    SCC-ban on leafleting at third party premises not justifiable under s.1 – distinguished between leafleting and picketing and a communication in labour disputes, SCC found that a ban on secondary leafleting was not saved under s. 1
  42. VDP:
    V charged w/ selling fish in contravention of regs under Fisheries Act. No established AR to sell fish TEST for AR Dissent: dynamic apr, 20-50yrs suffi; agrees that Ab activity must form integral part of distinctive Ab culture
  43. Sparrow:
    S caught fishing w/ illegal net. AR to fish? > factual record incomplete…back to trial…“exising” =not extg by Crwn prior to 1982; infringement must be justified (TEST) >waivers b/w historical and living heritage version of ethnocultural approach
  44. Guerin:
    relationship bt Crwn and Abos is FIDUCIARY. Must always maintain Honour of the Crown in these interactions
  45. Gladstone:
    selling herring roe on kelp = AR for a grp. Based on traveler’s journal  trading in food prior to contact. Infringement justified. Anthro & Hist evidence suffice
  46. Sappier:
    right to log on Crown land for building permanent homes/furniture upheld as particular right. Modern practice different from traditional practice
  47. Delganuukw:
    dispute over AT to large lands in BC. AT is like a fee simple, cannot use inconsist w/ trad use of land. Evid should consider Oral histories TEST for AT
Card Set
Show Answers