April 2007
Monthly Archive
Canadian Constitutional Law #32: Section 7 continued, Assisted Suicide Friday, Apr 13 2007
1L and Canadian Constitutional Law and Constitutional Law and Erin Morgan and McGill Faculty of Law 10:30 pm
Continuing on with our look at section 7 rights, we will now consider the case of Rodriguez v BC (AG). A woman with Lou Gehrig’s disease seeks a declaration that she may legally seek doctor-assisted suicide when her condition deteriorates to the point that she wishes to end her life. Can the right to choose the manner of one’s death be a constitutionally protected right under security of the person?
Rodriguez v BC (AG) (1993)
Canadian Constitutional Law #31: Life, Liberty, and Security of the Person Friday, Apr 13 2007
1L and Canadian Constitutional Law and Constitutional Law and Erin Morgan and McGill Faculty of Law 10:09 pm
Moving on to section 7 of the Charter, the first and broadest of the legal rights (ss7-14), we consider life, liberty, and security of the person. This is often used in a criminal law setting, but the cases we looked at in class were more unique. In this podcast, we consider the meaning of fundamental justice in the Motor Vehicle reference, then we look at the Morgentaler case in detail. In Morgentaler, the court found the existing abortion laws to violate security of the person without ever deciding whether women have the right to an abortion under the charter (only Wilson J expressly dealt with the substantive aspect of this issue). Next podcast we will continue section 7 rights with Rodriguez v BC.
Lochner v New York (1905)
Reference re sections 193 and 195.1(1)(c) of the Criminal Code
Reference re Section 94(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act (BC) (1985)
R v Morgentaler (1988)
Canadian Constitutional Law #30: Hate Speech Friday, Apr 6 2007
1L and Canadian Constitutional Law and Constitutional Law and Erin Morgan and McGill Faculty of Law 11:22 am
Is hate speech a form of expression? Can it earn the same Charter protection as dissident political speech? In this podcast, we will discuss hate speech, focusing mainly on R v Keegstra. We will briefly compare the Canadian and American conceptions of hate speech. Unlike in the USA, Canadian courts have held hate speech to be an inherently harmful activity analogous to a verbal assault, which is not deserving of the same protection as other forms of expression. This view is not unanimous, and we will look at McLachlin J’s dissent in Keegstra and Taylor as an alternative view of hate speech not accepted by the supreme court.
R v Keegstra (1990)
Taylor v Canadian Human Rights Commission (1990)
Collin v Smith (1978) (American Case, for comparison only)
RAV v City of St Paul, Minnesota (1992) (American Case, for comparison only)
Ross v New Brunswick School District No 15 (1996)
Saskatchewan (HR commission) v Bell (1991)
Canadian Constitutional Law #29: Freedom of Expression Friday, Apr 6 2007
1L and Canadian Constitutional Law and Constitutional Law and Erin Morgan and McGill Faculty of Law 11:19 am
What constitutes expression? Does it have to be speech, or can it include actions such as picketing? What restrictions on expression are justified? In our second podcast on fundamental freedoms, we will consider the importance given to free expression in our constitution (sec 2(b)). In keeping with a pre-Charter view that expression is necessary for a healthy democracy (see episode 22), the supreme court has traditionally given expression a very broad interpretation. In the next podcast, we will consider how the primacy placed on the value of expression changes in cases of hate speech.
R v Keegstra (1990)
Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, Local 580 v Dolphin Delivery Ltd (1986, SC)
BCGEU v British Columbia (AG 1988)
UFCW local 1518 v Kmart Canada ltd
RWDSU local 558 v Pepsi-Cola Canada Beverages (west) ltd (2002)
Ford v Qc (1988)
Irwin Toy Ltd v Quebec (AG) (1989)
R Moon, “The Constitutional Protection of Freedom of Expression,” 2000