Reference re Secession of Quebec, [1998]  4 underlying principles (unwritten) fed, dem



Download 0.96 Mb.
Page1/43
Date conversion28.07.2017
Size0.96 Mb.
  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   43

Table of Contents


Table of Contents 1

I Sources, Structures and Principles 8

1.Introduction to Sources of Constitutional Law 8

Elements of Can Const 8

Key Components of Const Acts 9

Sources of Can Const 9

Constitutional Change 10

Foundations of Const 10

2.Fundamental Principles 10

Reference re Secession of Quebec, [1998]  4 underlying principles (unwritten) fed, dem., respect for minorities and ROL 10

3. Minority Rights: Precedent and Innovation 12

(Montford Hospital) Lalonde v. Ontario (Commission de restructuration des services de santé (2001)  minority rights and ROL 12

Chinese Head Tax Redress (2002) 12

4. The Rule of Law 13

Roncarelli v. Duplessis  ROL and minority rights 13

Positive rights vs Negative rights 13

British Columbia v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd.(2005)  federalism  div of powers  ROL 13

British Columbia (Attorney General) v. Christie (2007) --ROL 14

5. Constitutional Conventions 14

Dif b/w Const conventions and underlying unwritten principles 14

The Patriation Reference. (Reference Re Amendment of the Constitution of Canada)(1981) what are conventions and how to establish them 15

6. Imperial Statutes 15

15

Distinction b/w: Colony acquired by settlement vs colony acquired by conquest 16



Distinction b/w Imperial Statutes and Received Statutes 16

From Colony to Nation 16

II. The Role of Judges 17

1.Judicial Review and the Canadian Court System 17

2.The Independence of the Judiciary 18

Reference re Prov Court Judges (or the Provincial Judges Reference) [1997]  3 elements  and jud indep is an unwritten fundamental const principle 18

3.Perspectives on Legal and Constitutional Interpretation 18

Frozen Rights vs Living Tree approach 19

Reference re Meaning of the Word “Persons” in section 24 of the Brit N. Am Act, 1867 [1928][p37]  women become ‘people’ 19

Edwards v. AG Canada [1930] 20

III. Historical Perspectives and Developments 21

1.Pre-Confederation: History, Memory and Mythology 21

Legal Plurality 21

Royal Proclamation 1791 21

How history has mediated lang, historical, and religious dif 21

Emergence / development of democracy in Can 22

2.The Confederation Debates 23

3.The Late Nineteenth Century 23

Division of Legislative powers 23

Federalism 23

Pith and Substance 24

Ancillary / Incidental Effect Doctrine 24

Russell v. The Queen [1882] prohibition  P&S  incidental effects 24

Double Aspects Doctrine 25

Hodge v. The Queen [1883]  Prohibition  double aspects doctrine imp of the provs 25

National Dimensions Doctrine 26

Doctrine of Federal Paramountcy 26

AG Ontario v. AG Canada (The Local Prohibition Reference) [1896]  POGG narrowed  paramountcy articulated 26

Dif. Views/theories of Federalism 27

Interception b/w Const interpretation and regulatory rules of state 28

Barrett v. City of Winnipeg [1891]  paying twice for both pub and priv school 28

4.The Early Twentieth Century: Limiting Federal Powers 29

Watertight Compartments (view/approach to federalism) 29

Toronto Electric Commissioners v. Snider [1925]  limitation of trade and commerce power  emergency nature of POGG 30

5.The Depression and the New Deal: Legal Responses 31

Overlapping Jurisdictions (view / approach to federalism) 31

AG Canada v. AG Ontario (Labour Conventions) [1937]  Div of powers 32

AG Canada v. AG Ontario (The Employment and Social Insurance Act) [1937]  narrow POGG interpretation  seeds of spending power jurisdiction 32

IV. Modern Constitutional Interpretation: Federalism, Formalism and Functionalism 33

1.The Modern Canadian State: Governance, Visions and Values 33

Three types const challenges = validity/ultra vires, applicability, inoperability 35

2.Assessing the Validity of Laws (Ultra vires) 35

Colourability doctrine 36

R V. Morgentaler [1993]  P&S  Colourability 36

Canadian Western Bank v. Alberta [2007] 36

Reference re Employment Insurance Act [2005]  P&S 37

Necessarily Incidental or Ancillary Doctrine 37

Test 37


General Motors of Canada Ltd. v. City National Leasing [1989] necessarily incidental 38

Double Aspect Doctrine 38

Multiple Access Ltd. V. McCutcheon [1982]  Double aspect doctrine  paramountcy 38

Classical vs modern paradigm 39

3.Applicability: Interjurisdictional Immunity Doctrine 39

Bell #1 (Commission du salaire minimum du Quebec v. Bell Telephone [1966]  interjurisdictional immunity 39

McKay v. The Queen [1965]  signs on laws for fed election  interjurisdictional immunity 40

Bell #2 (Commission de la sante et de la securite de travail v. Bell Canada[1988]  interjurisdicitonal immunity 40

Irwin Toy case –interjurisdictional immunity 40

Canadian Western Bank v. Alberta [2007] insurance sale  interjurisctional immunity 40

4.Operability: The Paramountcy Doctrine 41

Test for paramountcy 41

Ross v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles [1975] driver’s license suspended federal paramountcy 42

Multiple Access Ltd. V. McCutcheon [1982]  dual compliance (passes paramountcy test – operable) 43

Bank of Montreal v. Hall [1990] 43

Rothmans, Benson &Hedges Inc v. Saskatchewan [2005] Dual Complicity 44

Aboriginal Self-Governance and the Const 44

5. Overview of Selective Federal and Provincial Powers 44

(a) Peace, Order and Good Government (POGG) 44

POGG prongs 45

National concern / dimension prong 45

Reference re Anti-inflation act[1796]  POGG  emergency prong 45

R v. Crown Zellerbach Canada Ltd[1988]  POGG  National Concern Prong 46

Friends of the Oldman River Society v. Canada (Minister of Transport) [1992]  POGG  no national concern 47

(b) Criminal Law 47

(i) Federal Crim L power 47

Reference re Validity of Section 5(a) of the Dairy Industry Act (Margarine Reference) [1949] 48

RJR MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General) [1995]  under Crim 48

R. v. Hydro-Quebec [1997]  crim law  matter is shared jurisdiction 49

Reference re Firearms Act [2000]  Crim L test successful 49

(ii) Prov Power to Regulate Morality and Public Order 50

Nova Scotia Board of Censors v. McNeill [1978]  P&S  Not Crim Provs usually deal w/ moral issues 50

Westendorf v. The Queen[1983]  colourability 50

Rio Hotel v. New Brunswick [1987]  n ot crim  dual compliance 51

Assessing Federalism 51

51


6. Case Studies in Federalism 52

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 54

V. Challenges to Canadian Federalism 55

1. Globalization & National Constitutionalism 55

Ec Regulation: Prov and Federal Powers 55

Trade and Commerce 55

Carnation Co. Ltd. v. Quebec Agricultural Marketing Board [1968]  effects on intraprov trade were incidental so didn’t encroach on fed 55

Central Canadian Potash Co. Ltd. v. Govt. of Saskatchewan [1979]  ultra vires  P&S impact on int’l trade 56

Trade and Commerce - Prong #1 – Inter-prov and int’l trade and commerce 57

The Queen v. Klassen (1960) (just a Manitoba Court of Appeals decision)  impeded on prop and civil rights but necessarily incidental b.c as whole legislation aimed at interprov/intl trade 57

Kosher foods – importation restrictions – Eng labels on products (quebec) 57

Trade and Commerce - Prong #2 – General Trade and Commerce 58

General Motors of Canada Ltd. v. City National Leasing [1980]  question of national concern 58

Kirkbi AG v. Ritvik Holdings Inc. [2005] P&S  national  minimally intrudes on prov 60

Trade Barriers, Ec Integration and National Sovereignty 60

Black and Co. v. Law Society of Alberta [1989]  impaired mobility rights 61

2. Flexible Federalism 63

(a) Fed Spending Power / Taxation 63

(b) Executive Federalism and Intergovernmental Agreements 65

(c) Delegation b/w govs (fed and prov) 66

3.Aboriginal Governance and Federalism 66

Campbell v. AG BC (2000) 69

4. Quebec and Asymmetrical Federalism 70

70


Reference re Secession of Quebec, [1998] 2 S.C.R. 217 71

VI. Human Rights: Antecedents of the Charter 72

1.Rights, Racism and Federalism 72

Union Collery Co. v. Bryden [1899] – BC  Naturalization  expansive def’n employment/labour 73

Cunningham v. Tomey Homma [1903]  inconsistent w/ Union Collery  political rights 73

Quong Wing v. The King [1914]  Asian couldn’t hire white woman  federalism not good at protecting from racism 74

2.Religious Education and Minority Language Rights (see later in Charter section) 75

3. The Implied Bill of Rights and the Canadian Bill of Rights 75

Implied bill of rights 75

Reference re Alberta Statutes [1938] publication gov propaganda 75

Saumur v. City of Quebec [1953]  JW’s and their pamphlets 76

Switzman v. Eibling [1957]  communism 76

AG Canada v. Dupond [1978]  no demonstrating 77

Ontario Public Service Employees’ Union v. AG Ontario, [1987] implied bill of rights used regardless of charter 77

Canadian Bill of Rights 78

Equality Provisions 78

R v. Drybones [1970] 78

AG Canada v. Lavell [1974] 79

Bliss v. AG Canada [1979] 79

VII. THE CANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS 79

The Advent of the Charter and Approaches to Charter Interpretation 79

Basic Structure and Framework for Interpreting Rights 82

The Purposive Approach 82

Hunter v. Southam [1984]  living tree approach  purposive approach 82

Big M Drug Mart (deats on purposive) 83

Sources/aids of interpretation 83

1. The Merits of Entrenchment and the Legitimacy of Judicial Review / 2.Approaches to Interpretation Revisited 84

The left-wing critique of the Charter: 84

The liberal response to critique of Charter: 85

Critiques of judicial review based on charter 85

Response to critiques 85

Vriend v. Alberta [1998] 87

3.The Application of the Charter: Standing and State Action Governmental Actions 88

(Dolphin Delivery) Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, Local 580 v. Dolphin Delivery Ltd. [1986] 89

GOVERNMENTAL ACTORS 90

Entities Controlled by Gov 90

McKinney v. University of Guelph [1990]  forcing retirement 90

Stoffman v. Vancouver General Hospital [1995] 91

Entities Exercising Governmental Functions 91

Godbout v. Longueuil [1997]  eg of municipality exercising gov function 91

GOVERNMENTAL ACTS 92

Entities Implementing Government Programs 92

Eldridge v. British Columbia (Attorney General) [1997] 92

Entities Exercising Statutory Powers of Compulsion 93

Slaight Communications Inc. v. Davidson [1989] 93

GOVERNMENT INACTION 93

Vriend v. Alberta [1998]  negative interference counts too  INTENTIONAL OMMISSION 93

Dunmore v.Ontario (AG) [2001]  POSITIVE OBLIGATION OF GOV TO PROTECT VULNERABLE GROUPS –AG WORKERS 94

APPLICATION OF THE CHARTER TO COURTS AND THE COMMON LAW (NOT IMP??) 94

Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto [1995] 95

WHO IS PROTECTED BY THE CHARTER (CB 814 INCLUDE?? NOT DISCUSSED IN CLASS?) 95

STANDING: WHO CAN RAISE CHARTER ISSUES (CB 1300  INCLUDE?? NOT DISCUSSED IN CLASS?) 95

JURISDICTION: WHERE CAN CHARTER ISSUES BE RAIED (CB 1302  INCLUDE? NOT DISCUSSED IN CLASS?) 95

4. Limits on Charter Rights 95

Kinds of limitations on Charter rights: 95

SECTION 1- Defining limitations 96

A) Prescribed by law 96

R. v. Nova Scotia Pharmaceutical Society [1992] 97

B) Justification 98

Oakes Framework/Test 98

R. v. Oakes [1986] 99

Critique of Oakes test 100

In the wake of Oakes test subsequent development of Oakes test: Context and Deference 101

1) Contextual Approach 101

Edmonton Journal v. Alberta (AG) [1989]  contextual approach 101

Thomson Newspapers Co. v. Canada [1998] overview of contextual approach 102

R v. Lucas [1998]  CONTEXTUALITY SHOULD ONLY BE USED IN THIRD STAGE OF OAKES TEST 102

2) Deference to legislative judgement 103

Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Quebec (AG) [1989]  key case on judicial deference 103

RJR Macdonald Inc. v. Canada (AG)  FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION TABACCO ADVERTISING 104

Newfoundland (Treasury Board) v. N.A.P.E. [2004] 105

s. 33 THE OVERRIDE 107

Ford v. Quebec [1988]  OVERRIDE 108

5. FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS  Case Studies: 109

(a)Fundamental Freedoms  Freedom of Religion (s.2[a]) 109

Multani v. Commission scolaire Marguerite-Bougeoys [2006] 111

Sunday Observance Cases 113

R v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd. [1985] 113

Edwards Books and Art Ltd. v. The Queen [1986] 114

(b)Fundamental Freedoms  Freedom of Expression (s.2[b]) 115

R v. Keegstra [1990] (Note  Sheppard said we could omit this case) (hate speech)  116

(Dolphin Delivery) Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, Local 580 v. Dolphin Delivery Ltd. [1986] (SEE MORE IN DEPTH SUMMARY ABOVE) 117

Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Quebec (AG) [1989] 118

(c) Life, Liberty and Security of the Person (s.7) 118

Reference re Section 94(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act (BC) [1985] 119

R v. Morgentaler [1988] 120

Rodriguez v. British Columbia (AG) [1993] 121

Suresh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) [2002] 122

(d)Equality Rights (s.15) 122

Andrews v. Law Society of British Columbia [1989]  sets out first s.15 test  intersection w/ s.1 124

Law v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) [1999] 125

IACOBUCCI J’s TEST FOR DISCRIMINATION FROM Law: 127

R. v. Kapp [2008] 128

Lovelace [2000] (extra) 130

Eldridge v. British Columbia (AG) [1997] adverse effects doctrine 130

Corbiere v. Canada (Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs [1999] 132

6. Minority Language Rights (s. 23) 132

Mahe v. Alberta [1990] 133

Ford v. Quebec (AG) [1988] 134

7. Remedies (s. 24 of Charter and s. 52(1) of Const) 135

Doucet –Boudreau v. Nova Scotia (Minister of Education) [2003] 135

Schachter v. Canada [2002] 137

Vriend v. Alberta [1998] 139

Canadian Charter of Rights and FreedomsConstitutional Law Problems Framework of Analysis 141

VIII. The Constitutional Entrenchment of Aboriginal Rights 144

1.The Constitutional Entrenchment of Aboriginal Rights 144

R v. Sparrow [1990] 144

R v. Gladstone [1996] 145

R v. Van der Peet [1996] 146

Mitchell v. Canada (Minister of National Revenue-M.N.R) [2001] 148

R v. Sappier [2006] 149

2.Constitutional Recognition of Métis Rights 149

R v. Powley [2003] 150

3.Aboriginal Rights and the Duty to Consult 150

Haida Nation v. British Columbia (Minister of Forests)Taku River and Mikisew Cree 151

4. Nunavut, Self Government and the Inuit we did earlier in the course?) 151

IX. Constitutional Renewal and Reform 151

1.Constitutional Amendment after 1982: The Meech Lake and the Charlottetown Accords 151

Amending the Constitution 151

2.Democracy, Diversity and Constitutional Dialogue 155







  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   43


The database is protected by copyright ©hestories.info 2017
send message

    Main page