Browse "Law and Policy"

Article

The Valente Case

The A judge of the Provincial Court of Ontario declared that he had no jurisdiction to hear a case under the Highway Traffic Act of Ontario because he did not preside over an independent court in the sense of s11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

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.

Article

Kindler Case

In the Kindler case (1991), the majority of judges on the Supreme Court ruled that the Canadian procedure in extradition matters did not violate section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which specifies that everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person.

Article

Keegstra Case

The Keegstra case (1990) dealt with freedom of expression and hate propaganda. James Keegstra, a teacher in a secondary school in Alberta, made anti-Semitic statements in his classes and was accused of having fomented hatred against the Jews.

Article

Dionne Case

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

Article

Pamajewon Case

The Pamajewon case (1996) (also known as R. v. Pamajewon) was the first case in which First Nations in Canada argued an inherent right to self-government before the Supreme Court. Spearheaded by two Anishinaabe First Nations, Eagle Lake and Shawanaga, the claimants argued that the Indigenous right to self-government included a right to control gambling practices on reserves. The Supreme Court ruled that these First Nations did not have rights to high-stakes gaming under self-government.

Article

Zundel Case

The Zundel case (1992) centred on the constitutional validity of section 181 of the Criminal Code which prohibits the wilful dissemination of false news. Zundel had published a brochure entitled "Did Six Million Really Die?".

Article

Sparrow Case

R. v. Sparrow (1990) was the first Supreme Court of Canada case to test section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. Initially convicted of fishing illegally, Musqueam man Ronald Edward Sparrow was cleared by the Supreme Court and his ancestral right to fishing was upheld.

Article

Stinchcombe Case

The Supreme Court delineated, in the Stinchcombe case (1991), the legal parameters of a full and complete defence, as guaranteed by section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This had the effect of eliminating the legal uncertainty surrounding the disclosure of evidence by the Crown.

Article

Hibernia Case

On 19 May 1982 the governor-in-council asked the Supreme Court of Canada whether Canada (the federal government) or Newfoundland has the right to explore and exploit the mineral and other natural resources of the seabed and

Article

Fort Frances Case

In 1917, under the WAR MEASURES ACT, the government fixed the price and quantity of newsprint paper produced; subsequent legislation created the Paper Control Tribunal, which set retroactive prices through 1919, although wartime conditions had ceased.

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.

Article

Lavell Case

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.

Article

Eldridge Case

The Eldridge decision focused on federal spending power and on equality rights guaranteed in section 15 of the Charter.

Article

Van der Peet Case

In the R. v. Van der Peet case (1996), the Supreme Court of Canada defined and restricted what constitutes Indigenous rights, as previously defined by the R. v. Sparrow case (1990). Criticized for narrowing the scope of Indigenous rights, the Van der Peet test — a set of criteria established by the court to prove Indigenous rights — stipulates that the Indigenous custom, practice or tradition in question must be integral to the distinctive culture of the Aboriginal group claiming the right and originate from before contact with the Europeans.

Article

Sioui Case

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.