Study Sheet for POLS 3605 3.0 exam, February 12, 2004
-What are human rights?  Why are they important in a democracy?  What does “property & civil rights” in s.92(13) of CA, 1867 refer to?  What government(s) is/are responsible for legislating regarding human rights?
-Legal protection of civil liberties before the Charter in Canada.  The Canadian Bill of Rights.  The events leading to the entrenchment of the Charter.
-Contents of the Charter.
Criticisms of the Charter idea: Mandel, Knopff-Morton.
-To what bodies does the Charter apply as a result of s. 32?
-What can Parliament and legislatures do as a result of s.33?
-What remedies can courts impose as a result of a Charter infringement under s. 24?
-What are our democratic rights?  What are the main legal issues regarding democratic rights?
-Fundamental Freedoms: What is the nature of Freedom of Expression in s.2 of the Charter?  What is the relation between freedom of expression and language rights?  What are the implications of the guarantee of freedom of religion in the Charter?
-Legal Rights:  What does “fundamental justice” refer to in s.7?  What is the relation between “fundamental justice” and “due process”?  What is the relation between “fundamental justice” and “natural justice?”  (The two principles of fundamental justice are audi alterem partem (hear both sides) and nemo judex in sua causa (no one shall be a judge in his/her own cause).  What is the relation between s. 7 and ss. 8-14?  What are some of the “new” legal rights added by the Charter that were not contained in the Canadian Bill of Rights?

Cases you should recognize:
•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"?)