Search for ""

The Supreme Court of Canada ruling in the R. v. Sioui case on 24 May 1990 transformed understandings of treaty interpretations in Canada. Four Huron-Wendat brothers were charged and convicted of illegally camping, starting fires and cutting down trees in Jacques-Cartier Park in Québec. The Supreme Court found that the brothers were justified in arguing that a document signed by General James Murray and the Huron-Wendat chief in 1760 protected their right to use the land for ceremonial purposes and overturned the convictions.

Hunter v Southam Case Acting under the authority of s10 of the Combines Investigation Act, the director of the Investigation of the Combines Branch authorized several civil servants to enter the offices of Southam Inc in Edmonton.

The Lavell case (AG v. Lavell) was a challenge to Canadian law as it related to Indigenous women’s rights under section 12(1)(b) of the Indian Act. As the case moved through the court system, it merged with R v. Bédard and mounted a significant challenge against the patriarchal (male-dominated) and sexist nature of constitutional law in Canada.

In the Nova Scotia Pharmaceutical Society case (1992), the Supreme Court took into account the doctrine of vagueness.

By virtue of par 94(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act of British Columbia, anyone who drives his vehicle without a valid permit or while his permit is suspended commits an infraction for which the minimum penalty is a prison sentence.

Big M Drug Mart had been accused of selling merchandise on Sunday, contrary to the Lord's Day Act.

R v Olson In the summer of 1982, Clifford Robert Olson was arrested for the murder of 11 children.

In the Godbout case (1997), the Supreme Court of Canada unanimously decided that the obligation imposed on all its permanent employees by the city of Longueuil (near Montréal) that they live in the city was unconstitutional.

In the Hébert case (1990), the Supreme Court of Canada spoke directly on the right to silence. Hébert was accused of grand larceny. Advised of his right to counsel, he was imprisoned after the consultation.

The Gladue case (also known as R. v. Gladue) is a landmark Supreme Court of Canada decision, handed down on 23 April 1999, which advises that lower courts should consider an Indigenous offender’s background and make sentencing decisions accordingly, based on section 718.2 (e) of the Criminal Code.

Omar Khadr is a Toronto-born Canadian, captured by American soldiers after a firefight in Afghanistan in 2002, when he was 15 years old. The only minor since the Second World War to be convicted of purported war crimes, Khadr was imprisoned in Guantanamo Bay and Canada for almost 13 years in total. In 2010, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that Khadr’s detainment violated “the principles of fundamental justice” and “the most basic Canadian standards about the treatment of youth suspects.” Despite repeated attempts by the Canadian government to keep him in prison, Khadr was released on bail in May 2015. In July 2017, he received $10.5 million in compensation from the government for Canada’s role in violating his constitutional rights. In March 2019, an Alberta judge declared that Khadr had completed his war crimes sentence, making him a free man.

Thomas Sophonow was tried three times for the same crime, before finally being exonerated.

Romeo Phillion was the longest-serving prisoner in Canadian history to have a murder conviction overturned.

Maher Arar is a Syrian-born Canadian. In 2002 he was sent by the United States to Syria as an accused terrorist, based on faulty information supplied to US agents by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP). Arar was tortured in Syria before being released and returned to Canada. The federal government paid him $10.5 million in compensation for the wrongs done to him.

In 1991, Baltej Singh Dhillon became the first member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police permitted to wear a turban — as part of his Sikh religion — instead of the Mounties' traditional cap or stetson. Dhillon's request that the RCMP change its uniform rules triggered a national debate about religious accommodation in Canada.

The duty to consult is a statutory, contractual and common law obligation that must be fulfilled by the Crown prior to taking actions or making decisions that may have consequences for the rights of Indigenous peoples in Canada. The duty to consult has been affirmed and clarified by various Supreme Court of Canada rulings, such the Haida case (2004) and the Beckman v. Little Salmon/Carmacks case (2010). The duty to consult is considered by many to be an important step toward reconciliation with Indigenous peoples.