Cases you should recognize:
Pre-Charter:
•Alberta Press Bill reference (1938) (Duff Doctrine enunciated but
not supported by majority)
•Saumur v. Quebec (1953) (Quebec city by-law requiring permission to
distribute literature)
•Switzman v. Elbling & A.G. Quebec (1957) (“padlock” law)
•Roncarelli v. Duplessis (1959) (Duplessis cancels Roncarelli’s liquor
license. Issue: rule of law)
•Robertson & Rosetanni v. The Queen (1963) (Lord’s Day Act and
Bill of Rights)
•Regina v. Drybones (1970) (Offences created for Indians by Indian
Act & Bill of Rights)
•A.G. Canada v. Lavell and Bédard (1974) (Differential treatment
for Indian women in Indian Act
& Bill of Rights)
•A.G. Canada & Dupond v. Montreal (1978) (freedom of expression
under Duff Doctrine and 30-
day ban of demonstrations by Montreal)
Charter cases:
•Operation Dismantle Inc. v. the Queen (1985) (issues: does Charter
apply to cabinet decisions
made pursuant to prerogative power? Is it legitimate to
use a Charter case
for publicity purposes?)
•The Queen v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd. (1985) (Lord’s Day Act and Freedom
of Religion under the
Charter. Status of Bill of Rights precedents. Is
purpose important as well
as effect of legislation? Shifts responsibility for day
of rest legislation to provinces.)
•Edwards Book and Art Ltd. v. the Queen (1986) (status of
provincial
weekly day of rest
legislation: indirect & unintentional violations of Charter.)
•The Queen v. Oakes (1986). (Developed “Oakes test” for
application
of s. 1. I What is the
objective of the impugned legislation? Is it pressing and
substantial? II a) Is there a
rational connection between the objective and means used?
b) Is there minimal
impairment of rights? c) Is there an overall balance
between
the harm done by limiting
rights, and the good done by achieving the objective? Why
were Oakes’ rights violated?
What is a reverse onus clause?)
•Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union v. Dolphin Delivery
(1986)
(Are the courts part
of “government” in s. 32? Does Charter apply to the common
law re public law? What
about the common law re private law?)
•McKinney v. University of Guelph (1990) Does the Charter apply to
universities? Does the
Charter apply to provincial human rights acts? Is the
failure
of provincial governments to
prevent compulsory retirement a violation of equality?
If so, can this be justified under s.1?
•R. v. Keegstra (1990) (Is Crim. Code provision prohibiting “wilfully
promoting hatred against an identifiable group” a violation of freedom
of expression? If so, can it be upheld under s. 1?)
•R. v. Zundel (1992) (Is Crim. Code provision prohibiting “spreading
false news ” a violation of freedom of expression? If so, can it
be upheld under s. 1?)
•R. v. Butler (1992) (What is the relation between obscenity and
pornography?
Is the Crim. Code definition of obscenity void for vagueness?
Does
the prohibition of obscene materials in the Crim. Code violate freedom
of expression? If so, can this be upheld under s. 1?)
•R. v. Sharpe (2001) (Does the criminal code provision prohibiting
possession of child pornography violate Sharpe's right to freedom of
expression,
and if so, can the legislation be saved under S. 1? What did the
Court "read in" to the legislation?)
•Quebec v. Ford et al (1988) (Did Quebec’s prohibition of English on
outdoor signs violate the Charter? If so, can it be justified
under
s. 1?)
•RJR-MacDonald Inc. v. Attorney General of Canada (1995) (Does the
prohibition of tobacco advertising violate freedom of expression?
If so, can it be justified under s. 1?)
•Singh v. Minister of Employment and Immigration (1985) (Does the
deportation
of unsuccessful refugee claimants without granting them an oral hearing
violate s. 7 of Charter and Bill of Rights? If so, can it be
justified?)
•Hunter v. Southam (1984) (S. 8 is essentially a right to
privacy.
What must happen before a government official can search a private home
or office?)
•Valente v. The Queen (1985) (The three essential conditions of
judicial
independence are security of tenure, financial security, and
institutional
independence.)
•Reference re B.C. Motor Vehicle Act (1985) (What is an absolute
liability
offence? Does the absolute liability offence in this case violate
s. 7?)
•Askov v. The Queen (1990) (What is unreasonable delay? What
is the test for unreasonable delay? How did the SCC handle social
science evidence?)
•Rodriguez v. Attorney-General of British Columbia (1993) (Does the
Crim. Code section prohibiting assisted suicide violate s. 7? If
so, can it be justified under s. 1?)
•R. v. Mills, 1999 (Do limits to the accused’s right to obtain
confidential
records of a sexual assault complainant violated the right to a fair
trial?
If so, can these limits be justified under s. 1?)
•Andrews v. Law Society of British Columbia (1989) (Impugned
legislation: Law Society of B.C. regulation requiring lawyers to
be citizens. Why did the Chater apply to this regulation?
What
approach to equality did the SCC adopt? What is the test for the
application of S. 15? [What is a 'distinction' resulting in
discrimination?
What are 'enumerated and analogous grounds?] Did Andrews
win?
Why?)
•Turpin (1989) (Why was Turpin not discriminated against?)
•Ontario Roman Catholic High School Funding Case (1987) (Did
the SCC overrule an earlier decision of the JCPC? Is any one part
of the Charter superior to any other part? What is the impact of
S. 29 of the Charter? Who won?)
•Schachter v. Canada (1992) (Does availability of paternity leave
for adoptive fathers and not birth fathers violate S. 15? If so,
is the correct remedy to "read in" rights for birth fathers, even if
this
means the government must spend a significant amount more? How
did
the Federal Court of Appeal and the SCC differ in their answers to this
question? Note: this is a key case regarding whether the
courts
should be activist in requiring governments to spend more money to
enforce
Charter rights.)
•Symes v. Canada (1993) (Is the limit to the child care deduction
in the Inc. Tax Act discrimination based on sex?)
•Re Thibaudeau and the Queen (1995) (The Income Tax Act, prior
to 1995, with regard to divorced couples forced the spouse receiving
maintenance
payments to pay tax on these payments, rather than the spouse making
the
payments. Is this discrimination based on sex, given that most of
those receiving maintenance payments are women? Why was
Thibaudeau
in a different situation than most women? Who won? How did
the federal government handle the result?)
•Egan et al. v. the Queen (1995) (Impugned legislation:
Section of Old Age Security Act that defines "spouse" as couples of the
opposite sex. What was Egan's argument? Who won?)
•Vriend v. Alberta (1998) (Impugned: Alberta Individual
Rights Protection Act, and its failure to include sexual orientation on
list of prohibited grounds for discrimination. Case important
because
what is at stake is what is not in legislation. What was
the
outcome of the case? What was the reaction of the provincial
government?
Did public opinion have anything to do with the eventual decision of
the
Alberta government about what to do?)
•Eldridge v. British Columbia (Attorney General) (1997)
(Issue:
does failure of B.C. gov't to provide interpreters to deaf persons
violate
the equal right to access to health care? How does SCC answer
this
question?)
•Quebec Secession Reference (1998) (What were the questions the
Supreme Court had to answer? How did they answer them, and
why? Should they have given such detailed answers?)
•M. v. H. (1999) (Do homosexual couples have a right to use the
Ontario Family Law Act to claim support from a former partner?
What
was the remedy ordered by the court?)
•Morgentaler v. the Queen (1988) (Does the abortion section of
Crim Code violate S. & of Charter? What are the four
different
answers the court gives to this question? What is the reasoning
of
the different groups of judges? Is the outcome of the decision
clear?)
•Borowski v. Minister of Justice of Canada (1988) (What was
Borowski's
argument? By the time his case reached the SCC, was the case
moot?
Why? What is the test that the SCC developed for mootness in the
Borowski case?)
•Winnipeg Child and Family Services v. G. (D.F.) (1997) (Can
a judge use a common law remedy to protect a fetus that is
endangered?
Why or why not? In this particular case, did the fetus receive
protection?)
•Tremblay v. Daigle (1989): (Who wanted to prevent Daigle's plan
to have an abortion? What argument did he make pursuant to the
Quebec
Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms? Did the SCC expedite the
application
for leave and the actual hearing? What happened just after the
lunch
break during the hearing? What was the court's decision?)
•R. v. Sparrow (1990) (What is S. 35(1) of the CA., 1982?
Does S. 35(1) protect the right that Sparrow claimed to fish with a
drift
net too large for the fishing regulations? What is the test for
S.
35(1)?)
•Van der Peet v. The Queen (1996) (Is the selling of fish
by native fishermen and women protected by S. 35(1)? Why or why
not?
Even though Van der Peet lost, was there anything gained by native
litigants?)
•Delgamuukw v. British Columbia (1997) (What were the major
questions
to be resolved in this case, and how did the SCC resolve them?
What
has been the impact of this case for native land claim negotiations?)
•R. v. Marshall (1999) (Issue: interpretation of treaties
of 1760-1. What was the impact of historical evidence about the
native
understanding of the treaties, based on oral tradition? What was
the political outcome of this case?)
•R. v. Marshall (motion for Rehearing and Stay) (1999) (Should
the Supreme Court have commented on the motion for rehearing?)
•Labour Trilogy of 1987 -- Alberta Labour Reference, Public Service
Alliance, Sask. Dairy Workers. (Does the right to freedom of
association
imply a right to strike? Why or why not? What did the
majority
think about the intervention of courts into labour disputes? Why
did Dickson and Wilson dissent? How would the courts decide right
to strike cases if Wilson and Dickson had been in the majority?)
•Lavigne v. Ontario Public Service Employees Union (1991) (What
is the Rand Formula? What was Lavigne's argument? Did he
win
in the end? How much did this case cost the NCC and the unions?
•Law v. Canada (1999) (What did the Supreme Court add to the
Andrews test as to whether a law violated the Charter's equality
provisions?)
•Little Sisters (2000) (The court distinguished between an
unconstitutional law, and the unconstitutional application of that
law. How were customs officials applying the law
unconstitutionally?)
•Dunmore v. Ontario (2002) (Does the government have a positive
duty to include farm workers in labour relations legislation?)
•RWSDU v. Pepsi (2002) (Will the Supreme Court attempt to interpret
private law in a manner consistent with the Charter? What does
this have to do with freedom and expression and freedom of association
of members of unions?)
•Doucet-Boudreau v. Nova Scotia (2003) (How does this decision affect
our understanding of the Supreme Court's approach toward the scope of
appropriate remedies for Charter violations?)
•Syndicat Northcrest v. Amselem (2004) (What did this case add to the
Court's interpretation of freedom of religion?)
•Can. Fed. of Children, Youth and the Law (2004) (Why did the majority
think that although a law that allows spanking violated security of the
person, that law passes the Oakes test?)
•Newfoundland (TB) v. N.A.P.E. (2004) (Does having to cope with a
serious financial crisis sometimes justify limiting a right, if that
right is limited as little as necessary?)
•Regina v. Powley (2004) (What is the Court's approach to Metis rights?)
•Haida Nation v. B.C. (2004) (Does the Crown have a duty to consult and
accommodate Aboriginals before taking action that may limit a yet-to-be
established Aboriginal right?)