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?)
•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?)
•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?)
•Valente v. The Queen (1985) (The three essential conditions of judicial
independence are security of tenure, financial security, and institutional
independence.)
•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?)
•Therens (1985) (Right to counsel becomes relevant as soon as a police
officer asks for a breathalizer test; appropriate remedy for collecting
evidence in violation of a charter right, in this case, is to exclude the
evidence. What is "psychological detention"?)