Law and Policy | The Canadian Encyclopedia

Browse "Law and Policy"

Displaying 16-30 of 160 results
  • Article

    Chaoulli v. Quebec

    Chaoulli v. Quebec (AG) was a landmark case that came before the Supreme Court of Canada in 2005. It weighed the rights of patients to seek timely care (and of physicians to provide it) against the requirements of a socialized health care system, such as in Canada. The Court determined that the human rights of patients facing long wait times for medical procedures were being violated by Quebec laws prohibiting private medical insurance. The ruling only pertains to the province of Quebec, though three Supreme Court justices determined that the same laws violated a section of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

    "https://d3d0lqu00lnqvz.cloudfront.net/DrChaoulli.jpg" // resources/views/front/categories/view.blade.php
    
    https://d3d0lqu00lnqvz.cloudfront.net/DrChaoulli.jpg Chaoulli v. Quebec
  • Macleans

    Child Porn Ruling

    Shana Chetner doesn't mince words. Child pornography is sexual abuse, the youth counsellor for Greater Vancouver Mental Health Services says, and abuse leads to damaged adults. "The children are exploited and coerced," says Chetner, who has worked with troubled teenagers for nine years.This article was originally published in Maclean's Magazine on February 1, 1999

    "https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/images/tce_placeholder.jpg?v=e9dca980c9bdb3aa11e832e7ea94f5d9" // resources/views/front/categories/view.blade.php
    
    https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/images/tce_placeholder.jpg?v=e9dca980c9bdb3aa11e832e7ea94f5d9 Child Porn Ruling
  • Article

    Cod Moratorium of 1992

    On 2 July 1992, the federal government banned cod fishing along Canada’s east coast. This moratorium ended nearly five centuries of cod fishing in Newfoundland and Labrador. Cod had played a central role in the province’s economy and culture. The aim of the policy was to help restore cod stocks that had been depleted due to overfishing. Today, the cod population remains too low to support a full-scale fishery. For this reason, the ban is still largely in place. Click here for definitions of key terms used in this article.

    "https://d3d0lqu00lnqvz.cloudfront.net/media/new_article_images/CodMoratoriumof1992/Harbour_Grace_Douglas_Sprott_flickr.jpg" // resources/views/front/categories/view.blade.php
    
    https://d3d0lqu00lnqvz.cloudfront.net/media/new_article_images/CodMoratoriumof1992/Harbour_Grace_Douglas_Sprott_flickr.jpg Cod Moratorium of 1992
  • Article

    Communal Properties Act Case

     Walter v Attorney-General of Alberta (1965-69) tested the constitutional validity of the Communal Properties Act (1955), which had the effect of restricting the amount of lands that could be owned communally by religious groups such as the HUTTERITES and the DOUKHOBORS.

    "https://d3d0lqu00lnqvz.cloudfront.net/media/media/9dde7de9-5182-4dab-a6b3-f141ce3c9272.jpg" // resources/views/front/categories/view.blade.php
    
    https://d3d0lqu00lnqvz.cloudfront.net/media/media/9dde7de9-5182-4dab-a6b3-f141ce3c9272.jpg Communal Properties Act Case
  • Article

    Conscription in Canada (Plain-Language Summary)

    Conscription is the drafting of people for mandatory military service. Canadians have been conscripted twice in history. Both times, only males were conscripted. The first time was during the First World War. The second time was during the Second World War. Conscription was an issue that divided Canada. Most English-speaking Canadians supported it. Most French-speaking Canadians opposed it. (This article is a plain-language summary of Conscription in Canada. If you are interested in reading about this topic in more depth, please see the full-length entry.)

    "https://d3d0lqu00lnqvz.cloudfront.net/media/media/aab5fda7-e041-4148-b6de-40ea15191996.jpg" // resources/views/front/categories/view.blade.php
    
    https://d3d0lqu00lnqvz.cloudfront.net/media/media/aab5fda7-e041-4148-b6de-40ea15191996.jpg Conscription in Canada (Plain-Language Summary)
  • Article

    Patriation Reference

    The Patriation Reference, formally known as Re: Resolution to Amend the Constitution, was a reference case of the Supreme Court of Canada. On 28 September 1981, the court decided that it was legal for the federal government to patriate and amend Canada’s Constitution without the consent of the provincial governments. But it also found that to do so in areas that affect provincial powers would be a breach of constitutional convention. The court’s decision concluded that such conventions are of great significance. In the words of the court, “Constitutional convention plus constitutional law equal the total constitution of the country.”

    "https://d3d0lqu00lnqvz.cloudfront.net/media/media/7ac02b0f-118b-4ccb-b6dc-81f218b68954.jpg" // resources/views/front/categories/view.blade.php
    
    https://d3d0lqu00lnqvz.cloudfront.net/media/media/7ac02b0f-118b-4ccb-b6dc-81f218b68954.jpg Patriation Reference
  • Article

    Cook Case

    n the Cook case (1998), the Supreme Court of Canada held that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms applied to an interrogation by Canadian police operating in the United States of a person suspected of committing murder in Canada.

    "https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/images/tce_placeholder.jpg?v=e9dca980c9bdb3aa11e832e7ea94f5d9" // resources/views/front/categories/view.blade.php
    
    https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/images/tce_placeholder.jpg?v=e9dca980c9bdb3aa11e832e7ea94f5d9 Cook Case
  • Article

    Cooper Case

    In the Cooper case (1996), a majority of the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the Canadian Human Rights Commission did not have the power under its enabling statute to pronounce upon the constitutional validity of the mandatory age of retirement.

    "https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/images/tce_placeholder.jpg?v=e9dca980c9bdb3aa11e832e7ea94f5d9" // resources/views/front/categories/view.blade.php
    
    https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/images/tce_placeholder.jpg?v=e9dca980c9bdb3aa11e832e7ea94f5d9 Cooper Case
  • Article

    Crime

    Crime in modern societies can be defined officially as acts or omissions prohibited by law and punishable by sanctions. Although crime is sometimes viewed broadly as the equivalent of antisocial, immoral and sinful behaviour or as a violation of any important group standard, no act is legally a crime unless prohibited by law. Conceptions of crime vary widely from culture to culture; only treason (disloyalty to the group) and incest are condemned virtually universally, but they were not always treated as crimes.

    "https://d3d0lqu00lnqvz.cloudfront.net/media/media/04ee78c9-5b54-46b2-aaaf-652538ef9ff1.jpg" // resources/views/front/categories/view.blade.php
    
    https://d3d0lqu00lnqvz.cloudfront.net/media/media/04ee78c9-5b54-46b2-aaaf-652538ef9ff1.jpg Crime
  • Article

    Defence Counsel

    Defence counsel, lawyer who advises accused (defendants in civil cases) and presents their case to the court, ensuring that clients have a fair trial. If a client is convicted, the defence counsel speaks in respect of sentence.

    "https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/images/tce_placeholder.jpg?v=e9dca980c9bdb3aa11e832e7ea94f5d9" // resources/views/front/categories/view.blade.php
    
    https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/images/tce_placeholder.jpg?v=e9dca980c9bdb3aa11e832e7ea94f5d9 Defence Counsel
  • Article

    Defence of Automatism

    The term "automatism" describes unconscious, involuntary behaviour. Automatism is a "defence" to criminal charges in the following sense: to convict an accused the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt both a prohibited act and fault.

    "https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/images/tce_placeholder.jpg?v=e9dca980c9bdb3aa11e832e7ea94f5d9" // resources/views/front/categories/view.blade.php
    
    https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/images/tce_placeholder.jpg?v=e9dca980c9bdb3aa11e832e7ea94f5d9 Defence of Automatism
  • Article

    Delgamuukw Case

    The Delgamuukw case (1997) (also known as Delgamuukw v. British Columbia) concerned the definition, the content and the extent of Aboriginal title (i.e., ownership of traditional lands). The Supreme Court of Canada observed that Aboriginal title constituted an ancestral right protected by section 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982. Influenced by the Calder case (1973), the ruling in the Delgamuukw case had an impact on other court cases about Aboriginal rights and title, including in the Tsilhqot’in case (2014).

    "https://d3d0lqu00lnqvz.cloudfront.net/media/Twitter_Cards/supreme court-1.jpg" // resources/views/front/categories/view.blade.php
    
    https://d3d0lqu00lnqvz.cloudfront.net/media/Twitter_Cards/supreme court-1.jpg Delgamuukw Case
  • Article

    Dennis Oland Case

    On 19 December 2015, Dennis Oland was convicted of second-degree murder in the bludgeoning death of his father, Richard (Dick) Oland. A year later the conviction was overturned on appeal, and a new trial ordered. The initial, 65-day trial was the longest in New Brunswick history. It also drew national attention due to its brutal nature and revelations about the storied Oland family, founders of the Moosehead brewing empire. In 2019, Dennis Oland was found not guilty of the murder in his retrial.

    "https://d3d0lqu00lnqvz.cloudfront.net/media/media/545ffb94-7603-4ae2-86dc-ed6ef9ed95d2.jpg" // resources/views/front/categories/view.blade.php
    
    https://d3d0lqu00lnqvz.cloudfront.net/media/media/545ffb94-7603-4ae2-86dc-ed6ef9ed95d2.jpg Dennis Oland Case
  • Article

    Dionne Case

    Dionne Case (1978), known as Re Public Service Board et al, Dionne et al, and Attorney General of Canada et al.

    "https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/images/tce_placeholder.jpg?v=e9dca980c9bdb3aa11e832e7ea94f5d9" // resources/views/front/categories/view.blade.php
    
    https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/images/tce_placeholder.jpg?v=e9dca980c9bdb3aa11e832e7ea94f5d9 Dionne Case
  • Article

    Drybones Case

    In R v. Drybones (1970), the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that a provision of the Indian Act was “inoperative” — meaning no longer valid or in effect — because it violated section 1(b) of the Canadian Bill of Rights, which guarantees equality before the law.

    "https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/images/tce_placeholder.jpg?v=e9dca980c9bdb3aa11e832e7ea94f5d9" // resources/views/front/categories/view.blade.php
    
    https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/images/tce_placeholder.jpg?v=e9dca980c9bdb3aa11e832e7ea94f5d9 Drybones Case