scholarly journals The Right to Strike: The Supreme Court of Canada, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Arc of Workplace Justice

2016 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 89-109 ◽  
Author(s):  
Judy Fudge ◽  
Heather Jensen
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Supreme Court Of Canada ◽  
Workplace Justice ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Right

The Right to Assisted Dying: Constitutional Jurisprudence and Its Impact in Canada, Germany and Austria

ICL Journal ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 0 (0) ◽  
Author(s):  
Kerstin Braun
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Supreme Court Of Canada ◽  
Assisted Dying ◽  
Constitutional Courts ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Federal Constitutional ◽  
The Right ◽  
Constitutional Jurisprudence

Abstract Many states are grappling with the regulation of assistance in suicide and ending the life of another upon their request. Initially punishable in most countries, a growing number of jurisdictions have now introduced permissive frameworks decriminalising, to varying degrees, rendering assistance in dying. Other countries, however, have proceeded with the criminal prohibition and several courts have upheld the lawfulness of the respective criminal laws during human rights and constitutional challenges. Yet, the Supreme Court of Canada in 2015, the German Federal Constitutional Court in February 2020 and the Austrian Constitutional Court in December 2020 have respectively declared unconstitutional and void national criminal laws prohibiting rendering assistance in dying. This article first outlines the criminal law framework relating to assisted dying in Canada, Germany and Austria. It subsequently analyses the judgments before pondering their impact on the legal landscape in the three countries. The article concludes that while the Canadian Supreme Court decision appears to have had a significant impact on the introduction of subsequent legislation in Canada, the effects of the Constitutional Courts’ judgments seem much more subdued in Germany and are yet to unfold in Austria.

scholarly journals Feu la D.C.D. L'arrêt Miller et la peine de mort

2005 ◽  
Vol 18 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 567-576
Author(s):  
Henri Brun
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Death Penalty ◽  
Supreme Court Of Canada ◽  
Bill Of Rights ◽  
Right To Life ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Right ◽  
First Time

The Miller case, decided by the Supreme Court of Canada on October 5, 1976, puts the death penalty under the light of the Canadian Bill of Rights which formulates the right to life and the right to protection against cruel and unusual treatment or punishment. The following comment on the case relates to the interpretation given specific clauses of the Bill of Rights by the Court on that occasion. But it stresses especially the law that flows from the case about the compelling weight of the Bill of Rights over acts of Parliament enacted after the Bill came into force. In Miller, the Supreme Court expressed itself on the subject for the first time.

scholarly journals Was the Supreme Court right to change the law on the right to a speedy trial?

2017 ◽  
Vol 26 (3) ◽  
pp. 1
Author(s):  
Leonid Sirota
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Supreme Court Of Canada ◽  
Reasonable Time ◽  
Canadian Charter ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Right ◽  
Speedy Trial

In R v Jordan, the Supreme Court of Canada held, by a 5-4 majority and over the vigorous disagreement of the concurrence, that criminal prosecutions in which a trial does not conclude by a set deadline will be presumed to breach the right to be tried within a reasonable time, protected by section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The acceptable length of proceedings set out in the decision is of 18 months from the day charges are laid for cases that proceed without a preliminary inquiry, and 30 months otherwise. The Crown can still show that exceptional circumstances outside of its control have arisen and can explain — and excuse — a case taking longer than that, but unless it does so, a stay of proceedings will be the automatic consequence of such delay. Meanwhile, an accused will be able to show that delay below these ceilings is unconstitutionally unreasonable, but only by demonstrating not only that the delay is “markedly” greater than reasonable, but also that he or she diligently sought to have the case heard sooner.

scholarly journals Ce qui est abusif au sens de l'article 8 de la Charte canadienne lors de la recherche de preuves

2005 ◽  
Vol 27 (4) ◽  
pp. 965-982
Author(s):  
Bernard Auger
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Search And Seizure ◽  
Supreme Court Of Canada ◽  
Section 8 ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Liberal Approach ◽  
Compliance With The Law ◽  
The Individual ◽  
The Right ◽  
Minimum Criteria

In determining whether legislation permitting search and seizure properly meets the requirements of section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the courts have been obliged to balance the right of the individual to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure with the right of the state to ensure compliance with the law. In Hunter v. Southam, the Supreme Court of Canada established the minimum criteria of reasonable search and seizure for the purposes of section 8. The liberal approach adopted by the Supreme Court raises an important question : Should the same criteria apply to administrative statutes empowering bodies to conduct inquiries and inspections ? The author compares section 8 of the Charter with the American 4th Amendment, examining the requirement for search warrants in the light of Canadian cases. He then examines and discusses the case law concerning the applicability of section 8 to statutory provisions relating to the production of documents and the standard of reasonableness that should apply to these situations.

The Compensation of Wrongful Pregnancy in Québec Civil Law

1999 ◽  
Vol 14 (01) ◽  
pp. 61-82
Author(s):  
Louise Langevin
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
Analytical Framework ◽  
Child Rearing ◽  
Supreme Court Of Canada ◽  
Reproductive Autonomy ◽  
Canadian Charter ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Cost

AbstractThe Supreme Court of Canada has recognized the right to reproductive autonomy for women based on the right to liberty protected by section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Thus, it is a woman's choice whether to have children. It follows, therefore, that in the case of a violation of her reproductive autonomy, a woman has a right to compensation. It is in light of these principles that I analyze the wrongful pregnancy cases in Québec civil law. From a feminist analytical framework, I posit that Québec courts have effectively denied women the right to reproductive autonomy by awarding compensation for the cost of child-rearing only in cases where a difficult economic situation is evidenced by the parents. In so doing, the courts have not only refused to fully compensate women for the injuries caused to them, but they continue to reproduce the dominant pronatalist ideology in reproductive matters. This judicial reaction to cases of wrongful pregnancy is another example of the gendered dimension of law.

scholarly journals Un aspect crucial mais délicat des libertés de conscience et de religion des articles 2 et 3 des Chartes canadienne et québécoise: l'objection de conscience

2005 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 185-205
Author(s):  
Henri Brun
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Armed Forces ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Supreme Court Of Canada ◽  
Freedom Of Conscience ◽  
Current Case ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Difference ◽  
The Right

The Supreme Court of Canada, obiter, in the Big M Drug Mart Case, has spoken of the "Constitutional Exemption". It is the possibility not to be bound to obey the neutral laws that conflict with one's conscience or religion. It is what we call in French l'objection de conscience. The institution exists in Canadian and Québec Law as a part of the right to freedom of conscience or religion expressed in 2a) and 3 of the Canadian and Québec Charters of Rights. And it goes well beyond the right not to fight within the armed forces. The Supreme Court of Canada has actually delivered six judgments touching on the subject in 1985 and 1986. The conditions under which l'objection de conscience come into play are not so well known however. Does it cover matters of worship or only rules of morals ? Secular or only religious principles ? Personal or only group beliefs ? Do the existence of the rule, the sincerity of the objector and the reasonableness of the exemption have to be proved? Above all, what is the difference between a creed and an opinion ? The following article tries to formulate answers to these questions, with the help of current case-law.

scholarly journals Interpretation of Equality of Rights in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Practice of the Canadian Supreme Court

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
pp. 67-72
Author(s):  
Tatyana A. Vasilyeva ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Decisive Role ◽  
Supreme Court Of Canada ◽  
Constitutional Review ◽  
Canadian Charter ◽  
Human Rights Protection ◽  
Equality Rights ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Right

The Canadian system of human rights protection is an original one. The Supreme Court of Canada is one of the most influential constitutional review bodies in the field of human rights. At the time of its adoption, the Canadian Charter of rights and freedoms had the broadest catalog of equality rights in Western countries, formed on the basis of the Bill of rights and provincial human rights codes case-law, as well as the activities of political movements and groups of equality advocates who played a decisive role in its drafting. In Canada, a distinction is made between the enumerated in Charter and analogous grounds of discrimination established by court. The plaintiffs may claim differences on the basis of the enumerated or analogous grounds, or indicate the necessity to establish new analogous grounds. Article 15 (the right to equality) is recognized as one of the most conceptually complex provisions of the Charter. It is aimed at ensuring equality in the process of law drafting and implementation, as well as protecting human dignity. The Supreme Court of Canada is considering the provisions of the first part 1 of article 15, which enshrines the right to equality, and part 2 of this article, which provides for affirmative actions to assist disadvantaged groups as interrelated, reflecting the understanding of equality according to which affirmative actions are considered not as an exception, but as one of its best manifestations.

scholarly journals The supreme court of Canada and the offender’s right to be transferred to serve his sentence in Canada: interpreting the international transfer of offenders act in light of Canada’s national and international human rights obligations

2013 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 102-123
Author(s):  
Jamil Ddamulira Mujuzi
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Emergency Preparedness ◽  
Public Safety ◽  
Federal Court ◽  
Supreme Court Of Canada ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Academic Publications ◽  
The Usa ◽  
The Government ◽  
The Right

ABSTRACT In September 2013 in the case of Divito v Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) the Supreme Court of Canada dealt with the issue of whether section 6(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Charter, which grants Canadians the right to enter Canada was violated in a case where the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness declined to consent to the transfer of a Canadian citizen to serve his sentence in Canada where the sentencing state had consented to the transfer. Another issue was whether sections 8(1) and 10(1)(a) and 10(2)(a) of the International Transfer of Offenders Act, which granted the Minister the discretion to consent or not to consent to the transfer, were contrary to section 6(1) of the Charter. In resolving the above issues, the Court referred to its earlier jurisprudence, academic publications and international law. Although the Court agreed with the government that the appeal was moot because the appellant had left the USA by the time it was heard, it held that it retained “a residual discretion to decide the merits of a moot appeal if the issues raised are of public importance” and that this case was one of public importance because “[t]he issues are likely to recur in the future and there is some uncertainty resulting from conflicting decisions in the Federal Court.” The purpose of this article is to highlight the interpretative tools invoked by the court and the implications of the judgement.

scholarly journals The Labour Relations and the Canadian Charter; the aftermath of the first decisions

2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (4) ◽  
pp. 895-907
Author(s):  
J. Maurice Cantin
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Supreme Court Of Canada ◽  
Labour Law ◽  
Canadian Charter ◽  
Labour Relations ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Impact

The Charter was introduced at a time when there was no real demand for its existence. In this article, the author reviews the origin of the Charter and examines the impact on labour law of the initial decisions rendered by our Courts. He examines more particularly some of the first Charter decisions emanating from the Supreme Court of Canada. He writes that the Charter may have a damaging effect on labour law especially in relation to the right to strike and to picket. He concludes that the Charter is ill-suited for use in the labour relations domain.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document