Life of a Law Student » Canadian Constitutional Law http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com The Life of a Law Student project chronicles the material presented to and learned by law students across the country and around the world. The project was created by Neil Wehneman, an incoming transfer student at Indiana University at Indianapolis and led by Rob Wiltbank, a Criminal Justice undergrad at Delaware Tech and the University of Delaware. Feeds are segmented by course. Fri, 26 Aug 2011 02:35:25 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6 en http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com//wp-content/themes/fleur/img/fdl_icon.gif Life of a Law Student ©Rob Wiltbank and the LoaLS Team rob@lifeofalawstudent.com (Rob Wiltbank and the LoaLS Team) rob@lifeofalawstudent.com(Rob Wiltbank and the LoaLS Team) 1440 law school, law student, legal, law, court, school, constitution, criminal To make as much legal knowledge and information freely available, to as many people, in as many ways, as is possiblehellip; The Life of a Law Student project chronicles the material presented to and learned by law students across the country and around the world. The project was created by Neil Wehneman, an incoming transfer student at Indiana University at Indianapolis and led by Rob Wiltbank, a Criminal Justice undergrad at Delaware Tech and the University of Delaware. Feeds are segmented by course. Rob Wiltbank and the LoaLS Team Rob Wiltbank and the LoaLS Team rob@lifeofalawstudent.com No no http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com/images/podcast.jpg Life of a Law Student http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com 144 144 Canadian Constitutional Law #37 - Remedies and Reform http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com/2007/08/23/canadian-constitutional-law-37-remedies-and-reform/ http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com/2007/08/23/canadian-constitutional-law-37-remedies-and-reform/#comments Thu, 23 Aug 2007 17:48:03 +0000 Erin http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com/2007/08/23/canadian-constitutional-law-37-remedies-and-reform/ In this podcast we will discuss remedies within the constitution, and the process of constitutional reform within Canada. This is the final podcast in Canadian Constitutional Law.

Schachter v Canada (1992)

Vriend v Alta (1998)

]]> http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com/2007/08/23/canadian-constitutional-law-37-remedies-and-reform/feed/ 30:04 In this podcast we will discuss remedies within the constitution, and the process of constitutional reform within Canada. This is the final podcast in ... In this podcast we will discuss remedies within the constitution, and the process of constitutional reform within Canada. This is the final podcast in Canadian Constitutional Law. Schachter v Canada (1992) Vriend v Alta (1998) 1L,,Canadian,Constitutional,Law,,Constitutional,Law,,Erin,Morgan,,McGill,Faculty,of,Law Rob Wiltbank and the LoaLS Team no No Canadian Constituional Law #36 - Aboriginal Rights http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com/2007/08/22/canadian-constitutional-law-36-aboriginal-rights/ http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com/2007/08/22/canadian-constitutional-law-36-aboriginal-rights/#comments Thu, 23 Aug 2007 03:42:24 +0000 Erin http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com/2007/08/22/canadian-constitutional-law-36-aboriginal-rights/ In the second-last podcast for the course, we move outside the Charter and consider the constitutional entrenchment of aboriginal rights in sec 35 of the Constitution Act 1982. Even though these rights are entrenched outside of the Charter, we will see how jurisprudence has imposed limits upon aboriginal rights in a style very similar to the section 1 analysis normally performed on charter rights.

St. Catherine’s Milling and Lumber Co. v. The Queen (1888)

Calder v. British Columbia (Attorney General) (1973)

Guerin v. The Queen (1984)

R. v. Sparrow, (1990)

R. v. Van der Peet, (1996)

Delgamuukw v. British Columbia (1997)

]]> http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com/2007/08/22/canadian-constitutional-law-36-aboriginal-rights/feed/ 33:07 In the second-last podcast for the course, we move outside the Charter and consider the constitutional entrenchment of aboriginal rights in sec 35 of the ... In the second-last podcast for the course, we move outside the Charter and consider the constitutional entrenchment of aboriginal rights in sec 35 of the Constitution Act 1982. Even though these rights are entrenched outside of the Charter, we will see how jurisprudence has imposed limits upon aboriginal rights in a style very similar to the section 1 analysis normally performed on charter rights. St. Catherine's Milling and Lumber Co. v. The Queen (1888) Calder v. British Columbia (Attorney General) (1973) Guerin v. The Queen (1984) R. v. Sparrow, (1990) R. v. Van der Peet, (1996) Delgamuukw v. British Columbia (1997) 1L,,Canadian,Constitutional,Law,,Constitutional,Law,,Erin,Morgan,,McGill,Faculty,of,Law Rob Wiltbank and the LoaLS Team no No Canadian Consitutional Law #35: Language Rights http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com/2007/08/16/canadian-constitutional-law-35-language-rights/ http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com/2007/08/16/canadian-constitutional-law-35-language-rights/#comments Thu, 16 Aug 2007 20:41:56 +0000 Erin http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com/2007/08/16/canadian-constitutional-law-35-language-rights/ Language rights are very important in Canada as a result of the historical French-English tension. However, sections 91 and 92 do not assign administration of language-related issues to a specific level of government, so it is treated as an ancilliary sphere over which both levels of government have some control. Language is not a ground listed in section 15, although it may be analogous. The most important provisions relating to language in the constitution are in s133 (the right to use either official language in court and in parliament) and in the Charter between ss16 and 23, the latter being the right to minority language education.

Devine v AG Qc (1988)

AG Manitoba v forest (1979)

Mercure v AG Saskatchewan (1988)

R. v Paquette (1988)

Mahe v Alberta (1990)

Ford v Quebec (AG) (1988)

]]> http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com/2007/08/16/canadian-constitutional-law-35-language-rights/feed/ 30:52 Language rights are very important in Canada as a result of the historical French-English tension. However, sections 91 and 92 do not assign administration ... Language rights are very important in Canada as a result of the historical French-English tension. However, sections 91 and 92 do not assign administration of language-related issues to a specific level of government, so it is treated as an ancilliary sphere over which both levels of government have some control. Language is not a ground listed in section 15, although it may be analogous. The most important provisions relating to language in the constitution are in s133 (the right to use either official language in court and in parliament) and in the Charter between ss16 and 23, the latter being the right to minority language education. Devine v AG Qc (1988) AG Manitoba v forest (1979) Mercure v AG Saskatchewan (1988) R. v Paquette (1988) Mahe v Alberta (1990) Ford v Quebec (AG) (1988) 1L,,Canadian,Constitutional,Law,,Constitutional,Law,,Erin,Morgan,,McGill,Faculty,of,Law Rob Wiltbank and the LoaLS Team no No Canadian Constitutional Law #34: Economic and Social Rights http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com/2007/08/16/canadian-constitutional-law-34-economic-and-social-rights/ http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com/2007/08/16/canadian-constitutional-law-34-economic-and-social-rights/#comments Thu, 16 Aug 2007 20:41:42 +0000 Erin http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com/2007/08/16/canadian-constitutional-law-34-economic-and-social-rights/ Why does the Charter focus on legal and politcal rights, to the exclusion of economic and social rights? What does this absence mean for Canadian citizens? Could economic and social rights be read into the charter under an existing section? That’s what Gosselin tries to do in Gosselin v Quebec, without success. In this podcast we shall study the supreme court’s judgement, focusing on the dissenting opinion that Canada should include an economic right to basic subsistance under sec 7.

Gosselin v Quebec (2002)

]]> http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com/2007/08/16/canadian-constitutional-law-34-economic-and-social-rights/feed/ 24:21 Why does the Charter focus on legal and politcal rights, to the exclusion of economic and social rights? What does this absence mean for ... Why does the Charter focus on legal and politcal rights, to the exclusion of economic and social rights? What does this absence mean for Canadian citizens? Could economic and social rights be read into the charter under an existing section? That's what Gosselin tries to do in Gosselin v Quebec, without success. In this podcast we shall study the supreme court's judgement, focusing on the dissenting opinion that Canada should include an economic right to basic subsistance under sec 7. Gosselin v Quebec (2002) 1L,,Canadian,Constitutional,Law,,Constitutional,Law,,Erin,Morgan,,McGill,Faculty,of,Law Rob Wiltbank and the LoaLS Team no No Canadian Constitutional Law #33: Equality Rights http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com/2007/08/16/canadian-constitutional-law-33-equality-rights/ http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com/2007/08/16/canadian-constitutional-law-33-equality-rights/#comments Thu, 16 Aug 2007 20:00:11 +0000 Erin http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com/2007/08/16/canadian-constitutional-law-33-equality-rights/ In this podcast we will be discussing section 15 of the charter, equality rights. It is important to understand the difference between formal equality (American model) and substantive equality (Canadian model). We will consider the case of Law v Canada, which contains a very thorough analysis of equality rights by Iacobucci J.
Regina v Drybones (1970)

AG Canada v Lavell (1974)

Bliss v Canada (1979)

Law v Canada (1999)

]]> http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com/2007/08/16/canadian-constitutional-law-33-equality-rights/feed/ 17:29 In this podcast we will be discussing section 15 of the charter, equality rights. It is important to understand the difference between formal equality ... In this podcast we will be discussing section 15 of the charter, equality rights. It is important to understand the difference between formal equality (American model) and substantive equality (Canadian model). We will consider the case of Law v Canada, which contains a very thorough analysis of equality rights by Iacobucci J. Regina v Drybones (1970) AG Canada v Lavell (1974) Bliss v Canada (1979) Law v Canada (1999) 1L,,Canadian,Constitutional,Law,,Constitutional,Law,,Erin,Morgan,,McGill,Faculty,of,Law Rob Wiltbank and the LoaLS Team no No Canadian Constitutional Law #32: Section 7 continued, Assisted Suicide http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com/2007/04/13/canadian-constitutional-law-32-section-7-continued-assisted-suicide/ http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com/2007/04/13/canadian-constitutional-law-32-section-7-continued-assisted-suicide/#comments Sat, 14 Apr 2007 02:30:07 +0000 Erin http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com/2007/04/13/canadian-constitutional-law-32-section-7-continued-assisted-suicide/ 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)

]]> http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com/2007/04/13/canadian-constitutional-law-32-section-7-continued-assisted-suicide/feed/ 18:33 Continuing on with our look at section 7 rights, we will now consider the case of Rodriguez v BC (AG). A woman with Lou ... 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) 1L,,Canadian,Constitutional,Law,,Constitutional,Law,,Erin,Morgan,,McGill,Faculty,of,Law Rob Wiltbank and the LoaLS Team no No Canadian Constitutional Law #31: Life, Liberty, and Security of the Person http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com/2007/04/13/canadian-constitutional-law-31-life-liberty-and-security-of-the-person/ http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com/2007/04/13/canadian-constitutional-law-31-life-liberty-and-security-of-the-person/#comments Sat, 14 Apr 2007 02:09:29 +0000 Erin http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com/2007/04/13/canadian-constitutional-law-31-life-liberty-and-security-of-the-person/ 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)

]]> http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com/2007/04/13/canadian-constitutional-law-31-life-liberty-and-security-of-the-person/feed/ 26:16 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 ... 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) 1L,,Canadian,Constitutional,Law,,Constitutional,Law,,Erin,Morgan,,McGill,Faculty,of,Law Rob Wiltbank and the LoaLS Team no No Canadian Constitutional Law #30: Hate Speech http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com/2007/04/06/canadian-constitutional-law-30-hate-speech/ http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com/2007/04/06/canadian-constitutional-law-30-hate-speech/#comments Fri, 06 Apr 2007 15:22:12 +0000 Erin http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com/2007/04/06/canadian-constitutional-law-30-hate-speech/ 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)

]]> http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com/2007/04/06/canadian-constitutional-law-30-hate-speech/feed/ 23:16 Is hate speech a form of expression? Can it earn the same Charter protection as dissident political speech? In this podcast, we will ... 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 Jacirc;euro;trade;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) 1L,,Canadian,Constitutional,Law,,Constitutional,Law,,Erin,Morgan,,McGill,Faculty,of,Law Rob Wiltbank and the LoaLS Team no No Canadian Constitutional Law #29: Freedom of Expression http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com/2007/04/06/canadian-constitutional-law-29-freedom-of-expression/ http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com/2007/04/06/canadian-constitutional-law-29-freedom-of-expression/#comments Fri, 06 Apr 2007 15:19:15 +0000 Erin http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com/2007/04/06/canadian-constitutional-law-29-freedom-of-expression/ 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

]]> http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com/2007/04/06/canadian-constitutional-law-29-freedom-of-expression/feed/ 24:18 What constitutes expression? Does it have to be speech, or can it include actions such as picketing? What restrictions on expression are justified? ... 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, acirc;euro;oelig;The Constitutional Protection of Freedom of Expression,acirc;euro; 2000 1L,,Canadian,Constitutional,Law,,Constitutional,Law,,Erin,Morgan,,McGill,Faculty,of,Law Rob Wiltbank and the LoaLS Team no No Canadian Constitutional Law #28: Freedom of Religion http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com/2007/03/10/canadian-constitutional-law-28-freedom-of-religion/ http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com/2007/03/10/canadian-constitutional-law-28-freedom-of-religion/#comments Sat, 10 Mar 2007 14:11:50 +0000 Erin http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com/2007/03/10/canadian-constitutional-law-28-freedom-of-religion/ Can you take your kirpan to school? Not even if it’s in a box under your clothes? These are the questions of section 2(a), freedom of religion. We’ll talk about the evolution of the concept of freedom of religion and look at two cases as examples. First up is Big M Drug Mart, one of the first freedom of religion cases. Then we look at Multani, a case in the media recently about Kirpans in school. If you’re following the current discussions on reasonable accomodation, this is a classic example of how the courts try to respond to situations where seemingly neutral rules impact one group more than another.

Multani v. Commission Scolaire Marguerite‑Bourgeoys, (2006)
R v Big M Drug Mart (1985)
Lord’s Day Act 1970

]]> http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com/2007/03/10/canadian-constitutional-law-28-freedom-of-religion/feed/ 29:21 Can you take your kirpan to school? Not even if it's in a box under your clothes? These are the questions of section ... Can you take your kirpan to school? Not even if it's in a box under your clothes? These are the questions of section 2(a), freedom of religion. We'll talk about the evolution of the concept of freedom of religion and look at two cases as examples. First up is Big M Drug Mart, one of the first freedom of religion cases. Then we look at Multani, a case in the media recently about Kirpans in school. If you're following the current discussions on reasonable accomodation, this is a classic example of how the courts try to respond to situations where seemingly neutral rules impact one group more than another. Multani v. Commission Scolaire Margueriteacirc;euro;lsquo;Bourgeoys, (2006) R v Big M Drug Mart (1985) Lordacirc;euro;trade;s Day Act 1970 1L,,Canadian,Constitutional,Law,,Constitutional,Law,,Erin,Morgan,,McGill,Faculty,of,Law Rob Wiltbank and the LoaLS Team no No Canadian Constitutional Law #27: Section 33, Notwithstanding Clause http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com/2007/03/10/canadian-constitutional-law-27-section-33-notwithstanding-clause/ http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com/2007/03/10/canadian-constitutional-law-27-section-33-notwithstanding-clause/#comments Sat, 10 Mar 2007 13:51:57 +0000 Erin http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com/2007/03/10/canadian-constitutional-law-27-section-33-notwithstanding-clause/ Section 33 of the Charter allows sections 2 and 7-15 to be overridden if parliament or a provincial legislature expressly declare that a law shall operate notwithstanding the charter. This section is almost never invoked by the government because of the political repercussions, but it was considered by the supreme court in Ford v Quebec. We then return to section 1 analysis with a case about economic crisis, and whether that can qualify as a pressing reason to limit rights.

Ford v Quebec (AG), (1988)
Newfoundland (Treasury Board) v. N.A.P.E., (2004)

]]> http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com/2007/03/10/canadian-constitutional-law-27-section-33-notwithstanding-clause/feed/ 22:41 Section 33 of the Charter allows sections 2 and 7-15 to be overridden if parliament or a provincial legislature expressly declare that a law shall ... Section 33 of the Charter allows sections 2 and 7-15 to be overridden if parliament or a provincial legislature expressly declare that a law shall operate notwithstanding the charter. This section is almost never invoked by the government because of the political repercussions, but it was considered by the supreme court in Ford v Quebec. We then return to section 1 analysis with a case about economic crisis, and whether that can qualify as a pressing reason to limit rights. Ford v Quebec (AG), (1988) Newfoundland (Treasury Board) v. N.A.P.E., (2004) 1L,,Canadian,Constitutional,Law,,Constitutional,Law,,Erin,Morgan,,McGill,Faculty,of,Law Rob Wiltbank and the LoaLS Team no No Canadian Constitutional Law # 26: Section 1 Analysis http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com/2007/03/10/canadian-constitutional-law-26-section-1-analysis/ http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com/2007/03/10/canadian-constitutional-law-26-section-1-analysis/#comments Sat, 10 Mar 2007 04:44:21 +0000 Erin http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com/2007/03/10/canadian-constitutional-law-26-section-1-analysis/ If you listen to only one Canadian Constitutional Law podcast, it should be this one. Or maybe number 5, since that had both the landmark persons case and the concept of the constitution as a living tree. Well, let’s say if you listen to only two, this should be the second.

We discuss sec 1 analysis, which is used in virtually every charter challenge once it has been established that a right exists and is being infringed. Section 1 allows the government to limit a right if they can demonstrate the limit is: prescribed by law, reasonable, and demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. R v. Oakes is the early charter case that established a clear test to determine whether the section 1 criteria have meet met, and this test is still used today with very few adjustments. As I promised, I am posting a little map of how a charter challenge works from my notes to make the big picture more clear:

  1. Is there a violation of a right?
  2. Is the violation a reasonable limit under sec 1?
    1. The limit is prescribed by law?
    2. Demonstrably justified in a free/demo society?

i. Purpose is related to concerns which are pressing and substantial

ii. Means used to achieve objective are not disproportionate

1. Rational connection

2. Minimal impairment

3. Balance btwn both competing interests of society and the individual AND balance btwn the benefits of the legislation and the harm caused by it (Dagenais v CBC)

NOTE - In this podcast I originally said I would discuss both section 1 and section 33, but the latter was made into a separate podcast due to length. We will discuss the notwithstanding clause in episode 27.

Osborne v Canada (Treasury Board), (1991)
R v Nova Scotia Pharmaceutical Society, (1992)
R v Oakes, (1986)
Edmonton Journal v Alberta (AG), (1989)
Irwin Toy ltd v Quebec (AG), (1989)
Thompson Newspapers Co v Canada, (1998)
RJR MacDonald Inc v Canada (AG), (1995)
R v Lucas, (1998)

]]> http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com/2007/03/10/canadian-constitutional-law-26-section-1-analysis/feed/ 39:40 If you listen to only one Canadian Constitutional Law podcast, it should be this one. Or maybe number 5, since that had both the ... If you listen to only one Canadian Constitutional Law podcast, it should be this one. Or maybe number 5, since that had both the landmark persons case and the concept of the constitution as a living tree. Well, let's say if you listen to only two, this should be the second. We discuss sec 1 analysis, which is used in virtually every charter challenge once it has been established that a right exists and is being infringed. Section 1 allows the government to limit a right if they can demonstrate the limit is: prescribed by law, reasonable, and demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. R v. Oakes is the early charter case that established a clear test to determine whether the section 1 criteria have meet met, and this test is still used today with very few adjustments. As I promised, I am posting a little map of how a charter challenge works from my notes to make the big picture more clear: Is there a violation of a right? Is the violation a reasonable limit under sec 1? The limit is prescribed by law? Demonstrably justified in a free/demo society? i. Purpose is related to concerns which are pressing and substantial ii. Means used to achieve objective are not disproportionate 1. Rational connection 2. Minimal impairment 3. Balance btwn both competing interests of society and the individual AND balance btwn the benefits of the legislation and the harm caused by it (Dagenais v CBC) NOTE - In this podcast I originally said I would discuss both section 1 and section 33, but the latter was made into a separate podcast due to length. We will discuss the notwithstanding clause in episode 27. Osborne v Canada (Treasury Board), (1991) R v Nova Scotia Pharmaceutical Society, (1992) R v Oakes, (1986) Edmonton Journal v Alberta (AG), (1989) Irwin Toy ltd v Quebec (AG), (1989) Thompson Newspapers Co v Canada, (1998) RJR MacDonald Inc v Canada (AG), (1995) R v Lucas, (1998) 1L,,Canadian,Constitutional,Law,,Constitutional,Law,,Erin,Morgan,,McGill,Faculty,of,Law Rob Wiltbank and the LoaLS Team no No Canadian Constitutional Law #25: Application of the Charter and Charter Standing http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com/2007/03/10/canadian-constitutional-law-25-application-of-the-charter-and-charter-standing/ http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com/2007/03/10/canadian-constitutional-law-25-application-of-the-charter-and-charter-standing/#comments Sat, 10 Mar 2007 04:44:07 +0000 Erin http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com/2007/03/10/canadian-constitutional-law-25-application-of-the-charter-and-charter-standing/ Whose behaviour is bound by the Charter? Sec 32 tells us it applies to government (as opposed to private actors), but in practice this is more difficult to define than it would seem. We will look at a series of cases which define the limits of the Charter’s application. Over time, a body of case law has been built up which places some quasi-governmental entities under Charter jurisdiction (for example, municipalities) while other entities (universities, hospitals, the CBC) are usually not considered to by part of government. However, even a non-governmental entity may be subject to the Charter in certain situations if it executes a government function.

Retail, Wholesale, and Department Store Union Local 580 v Dolphin Delivery Ltd., (1986)
Shelley v Kraemer, (1948)
New York Times v Sullivan, (1964)
McKinney v University of Guelph, (1990)
Godbout v Longueuil, (1997)
Eldridge v British Columbia, (1997)
Vriend v Alberta, (1998)
Hill v Church of Scientology of Toronto, (1995)

]]> http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com/2007/03/10/canadian-constitutional-law-25-application-of-the-charter-and-charter-standing/feed/ 38:46 Whose behaviour is bound by the Charter? Sec 32 tells us it applies to government (as opposed to private actors), but in practice this ... Whose behaviour is bound by the Charter? Sec 32 tells us it applies to government (as opposed to private actors), but in practice this is more difficult to define than it would seem. We will look at a series of cases which define the limits of the Charter's application. Over time, a body of case law has been built up which places some quasi-governmental entities under Charter jurisdiction (for example, municipalities) while other entities (universities, hospitals, the CBC) are usually not considered to by part of government. However, even a non-governmental entity may be subject to the Charter in certain situations if it executes a government function. Retail, Wholesale, and Department Store Union Local 580 v Dolphin Delivery Ltd., (1986) Shelley v Kraemer, (1948) New York Times v Sullivan, (1964) McKinney v University of Guelph, (1990) Godbout v Longueuil, (1997) Eldridge v British Columbia, (1997) Vriend v Alberta, (1998) Hill v Church of Scientology of Toronto, (1995) 1L,,Canadian,Constitutional,Law,,Constitutional,Law,,Erin,Morgan,,McGill,Faculty,of,Law Rob Wiltbank and the LoaLS Team no No Canadian Constitutional Law #24: Judicial Review in Light of the Charter http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com/2007/03/07/canadian-constitutional-law-24-judicial-review-in-light-of-the-charter/ http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com/2007/03/07/canadian-constitutional-law-24-judicial-review-in-light-of-the-charter/#comments Wed, 07 Mar 2007 07:08:54 +0000 Erin http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com/2007/03/07/canadian-constitutional-law-24-judicial-review-in-light-of-the-charter/ In this short episode we will discuss the viewpoints of several authors on the issue of judicial review and its role in a democracy. We will consider the writings of W. Bogart, A. Petter, P. Monahan, and Hogg and Bushell, then look at a quick excerpt from Vriend v Alberta.

Vriend v Alberta, (1998)
R v Morgentaler, (1988)
R v Oakes, (1986)

]]> http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com/2007/03/07/canadian-constitutional-law-24-judicial-review-in-light-of-the-charter/feed/ 20:19 In this short episode we will discuss the viewpoints of several authors on the issue of judicial review and its role in a democracy. ... In this short episode we will discuss the viewpoints of several authors on the issue of judicial review and its role in a democracy. We will consider the writings of W. Bogart, A. Petter, P. Monahan, and Hogg and Bushell, then look at a quick excerpt from Vriend v Alberta. Vriend v Alberta, (1998) R v Morgentaler, (1988) R v Oakes, (1986) 1L,,Canadian,Constitutional,Law,,Constitutional,Law,,Erin,Morgan,,McGill,Faculty,of,Law Rob Wiltbank and the LoaLS Team no No Canadian Constitutional Law #23: Approaches to Charter Interpretation http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com/2007/02/10/canadian-constitutional-law-23-approaches-to-charter-interpretation/ http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com/2007/02/10/canadian-constitutional-law-23-approaches-to-charter-interpretation/#comments Sat, 10 Feb 2007 19:13:11 +0000 Erin http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com/2007/02/10/canadian-constitutional-law-23-approaches-to-charter-interpretation/ Well, it’s February and we made it to the Charter (if I only I could make it to spring break…) In this podcast we’ll talk about the advent of the Charter and some approaches the court has developed for its interpretation. Interpreting a constitutional document is different from regular statute interpretation, so Dickson J and Wilson J have taken on the task of inventing terms for the work they do, which we shall then memorize and repeat on exams. Good times.

Hunter v Southam (1984)
R v. Big M Drug Mart (1985)
Reference re sec 92(2) of Motor Vehicles Act (1985)
R v Therens (1985)
R v Keegstra (1990)
Reference re Public Service Employee Relations Act (Alta) (1987)
Edmonton Journal v Alberta (AG) (1989)

]]> http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com/2007/02/10/canadian-constitutional-law-23-approaches-to-charter-interpretation/feed/ 33:22 Well, it's February and we made it to the Charter (if I only I could make it to spring break...) In this podcast we'll ... Well, it's February and we made it to the Charter (if I only I could make it to spring break...) In this podcast we'll talk about the advent of the Charter and some approaches the court has developed for its interpretation. Interpreting a constitutional document is different from regular statute interpretation, so Dickson J and Wilson J have taken on the task of inventing terms for the work they do, which we shall then memorize and repeat on exams. Good times. Hunter v Southam (1984) R v. Big M Drug Mart (1985) Reference re sec 92(2) of Motor Vehicles Act (1985) R v Therens (1985) R v Keegstra (1990) Reference re Public Service Employee Relations Act (Alta) (1987) Edmonton Journal v Alberta (AG) (1989) 1L,,Canadian,Constitutional,Law,,Constitutional,Law,,Erin,Morgan,,McGill,Faculty,of,Law Rob Wiltbank and the LoaLS Team no No Canadian Constitutional Law #22: Implied (and Real) Bill of Rights http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com/2007/02/10/canadian-constitutional-law-22-implied-and-real-bill-of-rights/ http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com/2007/02/10/canadian-constitutional-law-22-implied-and-real-bill-of-rights/#comments Sat, 10 Feb 2007 19:12:46 +0000 Erin http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com/2007/02/10/canadian-constitutional-law-22-implied-and-real-bill-of-rights/ Were there any protections in place for our rights before the Charter?

In this podcast we first look at the “implied bill of rights”, a concept drawn from a series of pre-Charter cases that seem to hint at the idea that there may be a sphere of fundamental freedoms needed for a democracy which is beyond the reach of the provincial (and perhaps federal) government. Then we will look at the Drybones case and discuss why the Canadian Bill of Rights was ineffectual. Next podcast we will begin on the Charter.

Reference re Alberta Statutes (1938)
Boucher v the King (1951)
Saumur v City of Qc (1953)
Switzman v Elbling (1957)
AG Canada v Dupond (1978)
Ontario Public Service Employees’ Union v AG Ontario (1987)
Canadian Bill of Rights (1960)
R v. Drybones (1970)
Curr v R (1972)
Winnipeg School Division 1 v Craton (1985)
Singh v Minister of Employment and Immigration (1985)
Canada v Lavell (1974)
Bliss v AG Canada (1979)

]]> http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com/2007/02/10/canadian-constitutional-law-22-implied-and-real-bill-of-rights/feed/ 41:02 Were there any protections in place for our rights before the Charter? In this podcast we first look at the "implied bill of rights", a concept ... Were there any protections in place for our rights before the Charter? In this podcast we first look at the "implied bill of rights", a concept drawn from a series of pre-Charter cases that seem to hint at the idea that there may be a sphere of fundamental freedoms needed for a democracy which is beyond the reach of the provincial (and perhaps federal) government. Then we will look at the Drybones case and discuss why the Canadian Bill of Rights was ineffectual. Next podcast we will begin on the Charter. Reference re Alberta Statutes (1938) Boucher v the King (1951) Saumur v City of Qc (1953) Switzman v Elbling (1957) AG Canada v Dupond (1978) Ontario Public Service Employeesacirc;euro;trade; Union v AG Ontario (1987) Canadian Bill of Rights (1960) R v. Drybones (1970) Curr v R (1972) Winnipeg School Division 1 v Craton (1985) Singh v Minister of Employment and Immigration (1985) Canada v Lavell (1974) Bliss v AG Canada (1979) 1L,,Canadian,Constitutional,Law,,Constitutional,Law,,Erin,Morgan,,McGill,Faculty,of,Law Rob Wiltbank and the LoaLS Team no No Canadian Constitutional Law #21:Racism in the Law, Pre-Charter Era http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com/2007/02/10/canadian-constitutional-law-21racism-in-the-law-pre-charter-era/ http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com/2007/02/10/canadian-constitutional-law-21racism-in-the-law-pre-charter-era/#comments Sat, 10 Feb 2007 19:12:21 +0000 Erin http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com/2007/02/10/canadian-constitutional-law-21racism-in-the-law-pre-charter-era/ In this podcast we will look at three cases as examples of how racism in the law was dealt with before the charter entrenchment of rights. Without a constitutional document protecting rights, we see that the court could only strike racist legislation on the basis of division of powers. Both the JCPC and the Supreme Court explicitly state that it is not the place of the court to evaluate the wisdom or morality of discrimination in the law, their only role is to evaluate the constitutionality of the law. Predictably, this doesn’t do a lot to allow Japanese citizens in Vancouver to vote, or Chinese citizens in Saskatchewan to employ white waitresses.

Union Colliery Co v Bryden (1899)
Coal Mines Regulation Act
Cunningham v Tomey Homma (1903)
Female Employment Act (1912)
Quong Wing v the King (1914)

]]> http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com/2007/02/10/canadian-constitutional-law-21racism-in-the-law-pre-charter-era/feed/ 27:20 In this podcast we will look at three cases as examples of how racism in the law was dealt with before the charter entrenchment of ... In this podcast we will look at three cases as examples of how racism in the law was dealt with before the charter entrenchment of rights. Without a constitutional document protecting rights, we see that the court could only strike racist legislation on the basis of division of powers. Both the JCPC and the Supreme Court explicitly state that it is not the place of the court to evaluate the wisdom or morality of discrimination in the law, their only role is to evaluate the constitutionality of the law. Predictably, this doesn't do a lot to allow Japanese citizens in Vancouver to vote, or Chinese citizens in Saskatchewan to employ white waitresses. Union Colliery Co v Bryden (1899) Coal Mines Regulation Act Cunningham v Tomey Homma (1903) Female Employment Act (1912) Quong Wing v the King (1914) 1L,,Canadian,Constitutional,Law,,Constitutional,Law,,Erin,Morgan,,McGill,Faculty,of,Law Rob Wiltbank and the LoaLS Team no No Canadian Constitutional Law #20: International Economic Obligations http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com/2007/02/10/canadian-constitutional-law-20-international-economic-obligations/ http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com/2007/02/10/canadian-constitutional-law-20-international-economic-obligations/#comments Sat, 10 Feb 2007 19:11:56 +0000 Erin http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com/2007/02/10/canadian-constitutional-law-20-international-economic-obligations/ In this podcast we discuss some of Canada’s international economic agreements, and how they are impacted by division of power issues regarding the economy. We will look at some ways in which the constitution is “amended” in practice - that is, the methods that may be employed to achieve a distribution of power between the two levels of government that is not strictly what one would expect from sections 91 and 92.

Hunt v T & N Plc. (1993)
Lovelace v Ontario (2000)
Hospital insurance and Diagnostic Services Act (1957)
Medical Care Act (1966)
Canada Health Act (1984)
Canada Assistance Plan 1966 (CAP)
Unemployment Insurance Reference (AG Canada v AG Ontario) (The Unemployment and Social Insurance Act) (1937)
AG Canada v. AG Ontario (Labour Conventions) (1937)
Winterhaven Stables v Canada (1989)
Reference re Canada Assistance Plan (BC) (1991)
Coughlin v Ontario Highway Transport Board (1968)

]]> http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com/2007/02/10/canadian-constitutional-law-20-international-economic-obligations/feed/ 31:04 In this podcast we discuss some of Canada's international economic agreements, and how they are impacted by division of power issues regarding the economy. ... In this podcast we discuss some of Canada's international economic agreements, and how they are impacted by division of power issues regarding the economy. We will look at some ways in which the constitution is "amended" in practice - that is, the methods that may be employed to achieve a distribution of power between the two levels of government that is not strictly what one would expect from sections 91 and 92. Hunt v T N Plc. (1993) Lovelace v Ontario (2000) Hospital insurance and Diagnostic Services Act (1957) Medical Care Act (1966) Canada Health Act (1984) Canada Assistance Plan 1966 (CAP) Unemployment Insurance Reference (AG Canada v AG Ontario) (The Unemployment and Social Insurance Act) (1937) AG Canada v. AG Ontario (Labour Conventions) (1937) Winterhaven Stables v Canada (1989) Reference re Canada Assistance Plan (BC) (1991) Coughlin v Ontario Highway Transport Board (1968) 1L,,Canadian,Constitutional,Law,,Constitutional,Law,,Erin,Morgan,,McGill,Faculty,of,Law Rob Wiltbank and the LoaLS Team no No Canadian Constitutional Law #19: Economic Regulation II http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com/2007/01/24/canadian-constitutional-law-19-economic-regulation-ii/ http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com/2007/01/24/canadian-constitutional-law-19-economic-regulation-ii/#comments Thu, 25 Jan 2007 03:44:02 +0000 Erin http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com/2007/01/24/canadian-constitutional-law-19-economic-regulation-ii/ In our second podcast on economic regulation, we look at the federal government’s power to legislate for trade under sec 91(2), control over trade and commerce.  Beginning with the parsons case, this has been interpreted as containing 2 branches: power over international or interprovincial trade and commerce, and a second branch of power over general trade affecting the dominion as a whole.   This second branch was first discussed in Parsons, then expanded by Laskin J in the Anti-inflation reference and Vapor Canada, and by Dickson J in General Motors.

Citizen’s Insurance Co v Parsons (1881)
Reference re Anti-Inflation Act 1975 (Canada), (1976)
MacDonald v Vapor Canada Ltd (1977)
R v Dominion Stores Ltd (1980)
Canada Agricultural Products Standards Act
British Columbia (AG) v Canada (AG) (1937)
Motor Vehicle Safety Act
Reference re Agricultural Products Marketing Act (Canada), (1978)
The Queen v Klassen (1960)
Caloil Inc v AG Canada (1971)
Labatt Breweries of Canada Ltd v AG Canada
General Motors v City Natn’l Leasing (1989)

]]> http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com/2007/01/24/canadian-constitutional-law-19-economic-regulation-ii/feed/ 20:49 In our second podcast on economic regulation, we look at the federal governmentacirc;euro;trade;s power to legislate for trade under sec 91(2), control over trade and ... In our second podcast on economic regulation, we look at the federal governmentacirc;euro;trade;s power to legislate for trade under sec 91(2), control over trade and commerce.Acirc;nbsp; Beginning with the parsons case, this has been interpreted as containing 2 branches: power over international or interprovincial trade and commerce, and a second branch of power over general trade affecting the dominion as a whole.Acirc;nbsp;Acirc;nbsp; This second branch was first discussed in Parsons, then expanded by Laskin J in the Anti-inflation reference and Vapor Canada, and by Dickson J in General Motors. Citizenacirc;euro;trade;s Insurance Co v Parsons (1881) Reference re Anti-Inflation Act 1975 (Canada), (1976) MacDonald v Vapor Canada Ltd (1977) R v Dominion Stores Ltd (1980) Canada Agricultural Products Standards Act British Columbia (AG) v Canada (AG) (1937) Motor Vehicle Safety Act Reference re Agricultural Products Marketing Act (Canada), (1978) The Queen v Klassen (1960) Caloil Inc v AG Canada (1971) Labatt Breweries of Canada Ltd v AG Canada General Motors v City Natnacirc;euro;trade;l Leasing (1989) 1L,,Canadian,Constitutional,Law,,Constitutional,Law,,Erin,Morgan,,McGill,Faculty,of,Law Rob Wiltbank and the LoaLS Team no No Canadian Constitutional Law #18: Economic Regulation I http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com/2007/01/24/canadian-constitutional-law-18-economic-regulation-i/ http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com/2007/01/24/canadian-constitutional-law-18-economic-regulation-i/#comments Thu, 25 Jan 2007 03:40:07 +0000 Erin http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com/2007/01/24/canadian-constitutional-law-18-economic-regulation-i/ Who has jurisdiction over economic regulation?  This is an area that could fit under the federal power of trade and commerce (sec91(2)), or the provincial power over property and civil rights (sec92(13)).  In general, intraprovincial trade is considered to be a provincial matter and interprovincial and international trade is considered a federal matter.  In the JCPC era w little overlap was allowed, and the provincial jurisdiction over trade was thought to be very expansive.  More recent cases have narrowed this until a 1982 constitutional amendment returned more control over natural resources to the provinces. The next podcast will focus on the federal power over trade.

Citizen’s Insurance Co v Parsons (1881)
Carnation Co Ltd v Quebec Agricultural Marketing Board (1968)
Manitoba Egg Reference (1971)
Re Agricultural Products Marketing Act (1978)
Canadian Industrial Gas and Oil Ltd v Saskatchewan (1978)
Central Canada Potash (1978)
Westcoast Energy v Canada (National Energy Board), (1998)
Black and Co v Law Society of Alberta (1989)
Union Colliery Co of BC v Bryden, (1899)
Winner v SMT (Eastern) Ltd, (1951)
Reference re offshore mineral rights of British Columbia (1967)
Reference re the seabed and subsoil of the continental shelf offshore Newfoundland, (1984)
Reference re AG Canada and AG BC (Re strait of Georgia), (1984)

]]> http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com/2007/01/24/canadian-constitutional-law-18-economic-regulation-i/feed/ 36:24 Who has jurisdiction over economic regulation?Acirc;nbsp; This is an area that could fit under the federal power of trade and commerce (sec91(2)), or the provincial ... Who has jurisdiction over economic regulation?Acirc;nbsp; This is an area that could fit under the federal power of trade and commerce (sec91(2)), or the provincial power over property and civil rights (sec92(13)).Acirc;nbsp; In general, intraprovincial trade is considered to be a provincial matter and interprovincial and international trade is considered a federal matter.Acirc;nbsp; In the JCPC era w little overlap was allowed, and the provincial jurisdiction over trade was thought to be very expansive.Acirc;nbsp; More recent cases have narrowed this until a 1982 constitutional amendment returned more control over natural resources to the provinces. The next podcast will focus on the federal power over trade. Citizenacirc;euro;trade;s Insurance Co v Parsons (1881) Carnation Co Ltd v Quebec Agricultural Marketing Board (1968) Manitoba Egg Reference (1971) Re Agricultural Products Marketing Act (1978) Canadian Industrial Gas and Oil Ltd v Saskatchewan (1978) Central Canada Potash (1978) Westcoast Energy v Canada (National Energy Board), (1998) Black and Co v Law Society of Alberta (1989) Union Colliery Co of BC v Bryden, (1899) Winner v SMT (Eastern) Ltd, (1951) Reference re offshore mineral rights of British Columbia (1967) Reference re the seabed and subsoil of the continental shelf offshore Newfoundland, (1984) Reference re AG Canada and AG BC (Re strait of Georgia), (1984) 1L,,Canadian,Constitutional,Law,,Constitutional,Law,,Erin,Morgan,,McGill,Faculty,of,Law Rob Wiltbank and the LoaLS Team no No Canadian Constitutional Law #17: Provincial Regulation of Morality http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com/2007/01/15/canadian-constitutional-law-17-provincial-regulation-of-morality/ http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com/2007/01/15/canadian-constitutional-law-17-provincial-regulation-of-morality/#comments Tue, 16 Jan 2007 02:02:12 +0000 Erin http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com/2007/01/15/canadian-constitutional-law-17-provincial-regulation-of-morality/ Nude dancing, prostitution and stamping out communism are just some of the issues the provinces have attempted to tackle. Since morality is considered a valid criminal purpose (see Margarine reference from episode 15 of the last term’s podcasts), and criminal law is a federal power, how have the courts interpreted provincial attempts to regulate moral issues under other provincial powers like property and civil rights or matters of a merely local/private nature?

Westendorp v the Queen (1983)
Reference Re Nova Scotia Board of Censors v McNeil (1978)
Rio Hotel Ltd v New Brunswick (Liquor licensing board) (1987)
Switzman v Elbling (1957)
Bedard v Dawson (1923)
Reference re Alberta Legislation (1938), aka Alberta Press Act Reference

]]> http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com/2007/01/15/canadian-constitutional-law-17-provincial-regulation-of-morality/feed/ Canadian Constitutional Law #16: Review http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com/2006/12/20/canadian-constitutional-law-16-review/ http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com/2006/12/20/canadian-constitutional-law-16-review/#comments Thu, 21 Dec 2006 00:34:20 +0000 Erin http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com/wordpress/2006/12/20/canadian-constitutional-law-16-review/ In about 40 minutes we recap the whole term. We will begin term two in January with provincial regulation of morality.

]]> http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com/2006/12/20/canadian-constitutional-law-16-review/feed/ 41:18 In about 40 minutes we recap the whole term. We will begin term two in January with provincial regulation of morality. In about 40 minutes we recap the whole term. We will begin term two in January with provincial regulation of morality. 1L,,Canadian,Constitutional,Law,,Constitutional,Law,,Erin,Morgan,,McGill,Faculty,of,Law Rob Wiltbank and the LoaLS Team no No Canadian Constitutional Law #15: Federal Criminal Power http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com/2006/12/20/canadian-constitutional-law-15-federal-criminal-power/ http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com/2006/12/20/canadian-constitutional-law-15-federal-criminal-power/#comments Thu, 21 Dec 2006 00:33:24 +0000 Erin http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com/wordpress/2006/12/20/canadian-constitutional-law-15-federal-criminal-power/ Under 91(27) the federal government has the plenary (total) power to make criminal laws for Canada. This power has been interpreted very broadly by the courts to include legislation that can appear more regulatory than criminal so long as it contains a prohibition and punishment, with a valid purpose (usually protecting the public from an “evil”). Legislation has even been upheld as criminal when it appears the federal government intended it to be considered under POGG. This is the last new topic of term one.

Reference re Validity of Section 5(a) of the Dairy Industry Act (margarine reference) (1949)
RJR MacDonald Inc v Canada (Attorney-Gen) (1995)
R v Hydro-Quebec (1997)
Reference re Firearms Act (1996)

]]> http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com/2006/12/20/canadian-constitutional-law-15-federal-criminal-power/feed/ 27:40 Under 91(27) the federal government has the plenary (total) power to make criminal laws for Canada. This power has been interpreted very broadly by the ... Under 91(27) the federal government has the plenary (total) power to make criminal laws for Canada. This power has been interpreted very broadly by the courts to include legislation that can appear more regulatory than criminal so long as it contains a prohibition and punishment, with a valid purpose (usually protecting the public from an "evil"). Legislation has even been upheld as criminal when it appears the federal government intended it to be considered under POGG. This is the last new topic of term one. Reference re Validity of Section 5(a) of the Dairy Industry Act (margarine reference) (1949) RJR MacDonald Inc v Canada (Attorney-Gen) (1995) R v Hydro-Quebec (1997) Reference re Firearms Act (1996) 1L,,Canadian,Constitutional,Law,,Constitutional,Law,,Erin,Morgan,,McGill,Faculty,of,Law Rob Wiltbank and the LoaLS Team no No Canadian Constitutional Law #14: POGG National Concern http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com/2006/12/20/canadian-constitutional-law-14-pogg-national-concern/ http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com/2006/12/20/canadian-constitutional-law-14-pogg-national-concern/#comments Thu, 21 Dec 2006 00:31:34 +0000 Erin http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com/wordpress/2006/12/20/canadian-constitutional-law-14-pogg-national-concern/ To conclude our discussion of POGG, we will look at the second major branch of this concept as national concern. What makes something national concern? What criteria must it meet? The foundational case on this subject is R v Crown Zellerbach Ltd, in which justice Le Dain establishes a test to determine whether an area of jurisdiction meets the criteria for national concern. We will look at this test and a few other cases relating to POGG.

AG Ontario v Canada Temperance Federation (1946)
Johannesson v Rural municipality of West St. Paul (1952)
Munro v. Capital Commission (1966)
R. v Crown Zellerbach Canada Ltd (1988)
Friends of the Oldman River Society v Canada (Minister of Transport) (1992)

]]> http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com/2006/12/20/canadian-constitutional-law-14-pogg-national-concern/feed/ 23:03 To conclude our discussion of POGG, we will look at the second major branch of this concept as national concern. What makes something national concern? ... To conclude our discussion of POGG, we will look at the second major branch of this concept as national concern. What makes something national concern? What criteria must it meet? The foundational case on this subject is R v Crown Zellerbach Ltd, in which justice Le Dain establishes a test to determine whether an area of jurisdiction meets the criteria for national concern. We will look at this test and a few other cases relating to POGG. AG Ontario v Canada Temperance Federation (1946) Johannesson v Rural municipality of West St. Paul (1952) Munro v. Capital Commission (1966) R. v Crown Zellerbach Canada Ltd (1988) Friends of the Oldman River Society v Canada (Minister of Transport) (1992) 1L,,Canadian,Constitutional,Law,,Constitutional,Law,,Erin,Morgan,,McGill,Faculty,of,Law Rob Wiltbank and the LoaLS Team no No Canadian Constitutional Law #13: POGG Emergency http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com/2006/12/20/canadian-constitutional-law-13-pogg-emergency/ http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com/2006/12/20/canadian-constitutional-law-13-pogg-emergency/#comments Thu, 21 Dec 2006 00:29:58 +0000 Erin http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com/wordpress/2006/12/20/canadian-constitutional-law-13-pogg-emergency/ The federal government has the power to make lakes for the “Peace Order and Good Governance” (POGG) of the country under s91. But what does this mean? In the first of two podcasts on POGG we will look at POGG as an emergency power, as seen in the Laskin-Beetz debate in the Anti-Inflation Reference 1976.

Reference re Anti-Inflation Act (1976)

]]> http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com/2006/12/20/canadian-constitutional-law-13-pogg-emergency/feed/ 29:40 The federal government has the power to make lakes for the "Peace Order and Good Governance" (POGG) of the country under s91. But what does ... The federal government has the power to make lakes for the "Peace Order and Good Governance" (POGG) of the country under s91. But what does this mean? In the first of two podcasts on POGG we will look at POGG as an emergency power, as seen in the Laskin-Beetz debate in the Anti-Inflation Reference 1976. Reference re Anti-Inflation Act (1976) 1L,,Canadian,Constitutional,Law,,Constitutional,Law,,Erin,Morgan,,McGill,Faculty,of,Law Rob Wiltbank and the LoaLS Team no No Canadian Constitutional Law #12: Paramountcy Doctrine http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com/2006/11/24/canadian-constitutional-law-12-paramountcy-doctrine/ http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com/2006/11/24/canadian-constitutional-law-12-paramountcy-doctrine/#comments Fri, 24 Nov 2006 09:48:00 +0000 Erin http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com/wordpress/?p=374 This is the last doctrine for a while! Paramountcy dictates that in areas of concurrent jurisdiction (remember the double aspect doctrine?), if there is a conflict between statutes the federal government will have final say. In this podcast will we observe a drunk driver have his licence both suspended and restricted (confusing, no?) and lament the fate of Saskatchewan farmers, who are often unappreciated by bureaucrats in Ottawa. Multiple Access v McCutchoen is also back by popular request.

Ross v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles (1975)
Multiple Access Ltd. v. McCutcheon (1982)
Bank of Montreal v. Hall (1990)

]]> http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com/2006/11/24/canadian-constitutional-law-12-paramountcy-doctrine/feed/ 24:33 This is the last doctrine for a while! Paramountcy dictates that in areas of concurrent jurisdiction (remember the double aspect doctrine?), if there is ... This is the last doctrine for a while! Paramountcy dictates that in areas of concurrent jurisdiction (remember the double aspect doctrine?), if there is a conflict between statutes the federal government will have final say. In this podcast will we observe a drunk driver have his licence both suspended and restricted (confusing, no?) and lament the fate of Saskatchewan farmers, who are often unappreciated by bureaucrats in Ottawa. Multiple Access v McCutchoen is also back by popular request. Ross v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles (1975) Multiple Access Ltd. v. McCutcheon (1982) Bank of Montreal v. Hall (1990) 1L,,Canadian,Constitutional,Law,,Constitutional,Law,,Erin,Morgan,,McGill,Faculty,of,Law Rob Wiltbank and the LoaLS Team no No Canadian Constitutional Law #11: Interjurisdictional Immunity Doctrine http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com/2006/11/24/canadian-constitutional-law-11-interjurisdictional-immunity-doctrine/ http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com/2006/11/24/canadian-constitutional-law-11-interjurisdictional-immunity-doctrine/#comments Fri, 24 Nov 2006 09:41:00 +0000 Erin http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com/wordpress/?p=375 We continue our study of the many, many doctrines of Canadian Constitutional theory with the Interjurisdictional Immunity Doctrine, which exempts certain federal undertakings (think Bell Canada) from provincial laws which are otherwise valid. In this podcast you will learn:

  • where labour laws go to die.
  • what a hopeless anglo sounds like when she tries to read the titles of french cases.
  • why my spell-check doesn’t recognize Interjurisdictional as a word.

Commission du Salaire Minimum v Bell Telephone Co. of Canada (1966) “Bell #1″
McKay v the Queen (1965)
Commission de la Sante et de la Securite du Travail v Bell Canada (1988) “Bell #2″
Orden Estate v. Grail (1998)
R. v Pacific Railway (1995)
Irwin Toy Ltd v Quebec (1989)

]]> http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com/2006/11/24/canadian-constitutional-law-11-interjurisdictional-immunity-doctrine/feed/ Canadian Constitutional Law #10: Ancillary Doctrine, Double Aspect Doctrine http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com/2006/11/24/canadian-constitutional-law-10-ancillary-doctrine-double-aspect-doctrine/ http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com/2006/11/24/canadian-constitutional-law-10-ancillary-doctrine-double-aspect-doctrine/#comments Fri, 24 Nov 2006 09:34:00 +0000 Erin http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com/wordpress/?p=376 In this podcast we celebrate the conclusion of my memo by studying two more doctrines! The Ancillary (also called Necessarily Incidental) doctrine is sometimes used to uphold a specific provision that infringes on another government’s jurisdiction when the provision is part of a larger valid scheme. The Double Aspect Doctrine is very commonly used to allow for concurrent jurisdictions of shared legislative power between the provinces and the federal government. The double aspects doctrine is simple but very important, and we will build on it in later podcasts.

General Motors of Canada Ltd. v City National Leasing (1989)
Multiple Access ltd. v McCutcheon (1982)

]]> http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com/2006/11/24/canadian-constitutional-law-10-ancillary-doctrine-double-aspect-doctrine/feed/ 16:27 In this podcast we celebrate the conclusion of my memo by studying two more doctrines! The Ancillary (also called Necessarily Incidental) doctrine is sometimes ... In this podcast we celebrate the conclusion of my memo by studying two more doctrines! The Ancillary (also called Necessarily Incidental) doctrine is sometimes used to uphold a specific provision that infringes on another government's jurisdiction when the provision is part of a larger valid scheme. The Double Aspect Doctrine is very commonly used to allow for concurrent jurisdictions of shared legislative power between the provinces and the federal government. The double aspects doctrine is simple but very important, and we will build on it in later podcasts. General Motors of Canada Ltd. v City National Leasing (1989) Multiple Access ltd. v McCutcheon (1982) 1L,,Canadian,Constitutional,Law,,Constitutional,Law,,Erin,Morgan,,McGill,Faculty,of,Law Rob Wiltbank and the LoaLS Team no No Canadian Constitutional Law #9: Pith = Babies? http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com/2006/11/13/canadian-constitutional-law-9-pith-babies/ http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com/2006/11/13/canadian-constitutional-law-9-pith-babies/#comments Mon, 13 Nov 2006 07:29:01 +0000 Erin http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com/wordpress/?p=377 In this podcast we take a closer look at the Pith and Substance doctrine by examining one of the Morgentaler cases relating to abortion and the Reference re Employment Insurance regarding maternity leave benefits. Morgentaler is always interesting, this will be a fun podcast.

R v Morgentaler (1993)
Reference re Employment Insurance Act, (2005)
Unemployment Insurance Act 1940

]]> http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com/2006/11/13/canadian-constitutional-law-9-pith-babies/feed/ 31:28 In this podcast we take a closer look at the Pith and Substance doctrine by examining one of the Morgentaler cases relating to abortion and ... In this podcast we take a closer look at the Pith and Substance doctrine by examining one of the Morgentaler cases relating to abortion and the Reference re Employment Insurance regarding maternity leave benefits. Morgentaler is always interesting, this will be a fun podcast. R v Morgentaler (1993) Reference re Employment Insurance Act, (2005) Unemployment Insurance Act 1940 1L,,Canadian,Constitutional,Law,,Constitutional,Law,,Erin,Morgan,,McGill,Faculty,of,Law Rob Wiltbank and the LoaLS Team no No Canadian Constitutional Law #8: The Depression and the New Deal Legislation http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com/2006/11/05/canadian-constitutional-law-8-the-depression-and-the-new-deal-legislation/ http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com/2006/11/05/canadian-constitutional-law-8-the-depression-and-the-new-deal-legislation/#comments Sun, 05 Nov 2006 07:15:00 +0000 Erin http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com/wordpress/?p=378 In this episode we’ll discuss the “New Deal” legislation, six statutes enacted by RP Bennett’s government in 1935 to combat the depression. These acts were mostly ruled ultra vires by the JCPC in two reference decisions that sparked some backlash towards the Privy Council’s strict interpretations, and later led to a constitutional amendment.

The Unemployment Act 1930
The Farmers’ Creditors Arrangement Act 1934 Natural Products Marketing Act 1934
Limitation of Hours Work Act 1935
Weekly Rest in Industrial Undertakings Act 1935
Minimum Wage Act 1935
Employment and Social Insurance Act 1935
Dominion Trade and Industry Commission Act 1935
British North America Act (Constitution Act) 1867, s132
AG Canada v AG Ontario (labour conventions act) (1937)
AG Canada v AG Ontario (the employment and social insurance act) (1937)
The O’Conner Report 1939
The Rowell-Sirois Commission 1940

]]> http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com/2006/11/05/canadian-constitutional-law-8-the-depression-and-the-new-deal-legislation/feed/ 21:23 In this episode we'll discuss the "New Deal" legislation, six statutes enacted by RP Bennett's government in 1935 to combat the depression. These acts ... In this episode we'll discuss the "New Deal" legislation, six statutes enacted by RP Bennett's government in 1935 to combat the depression. These acts were mostly ruled ultra vires by the JCPC in two reference decisions that sparked some backlash towards the Privy Council's strict interpretations, and later led to a constitutional amendment. The Unemployment Act 1930 The Farmersacirc;euro;trade; Creditors Arrangement Act 1934 Natural Products Marketing Act 1934 Limitation of Hours Work Act 1935 Weekly Rest in Industrial Undertakings Act 1935 Minimum Wage Act 1935 Employment and Social Insurance Act 1935 Dominion Trade and Industry Commission Act 1935 British North America Act (Constitution Act) 1867, s132 AG Canada v AG Ontario (labour conventions act) (1937) AG Canada v AG Ontario (the employment and social insurance act) (1937) The O'Conner Report 1939 The Rowell-Sirois Commission 1940 1L,,Canadian,Constitutional,Law,,Constitutional,Law,,Erin,Morgan,,McGill,Faculty,of,Law Rob Wiltbank and the LoaLS Team no No Canadian Constitutional Law #7: Watertight Compartments http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com/2006/10/30/canadian-constitutional-law-7-watertight-compartments/ http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com/2006/10/30/canadian-constitutional-law-7-watertight-compartments/#comments Mon, 30 Oct 2006 07:57:22 +0000 Erin http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com/wordpress/?p=379 Diverging from the Russell and Hodge cases we looked at last time, in the 1920s Lord Haldane made a series of judgements that viewed the powers given to the federal and provincial governments in s91 and s92 as “watertight compartments” where little or no overlap may exist. I disscuss the Snider case as an early example of this view. Then we’ll look at some of the discussion and criticism that occurred as a result of the stance taken by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.

Toronto Electric Commissioners v Snider (1925)
AG Canada v AG Alberta (the insurance reference) (1916)
Montreal v Montreal Street Railway (1912)

]]> http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com/2006/10/30/canadian-constitutional-law-7-watertight-compartments/feed/ 18:04 Diverging from the Russell and Hodge cases we looked at last time, in the 1920s Lord Haldane made a series of judgements that viewed the ... Diverging from the Russell and Hodge cases we looked at last time, in the 1920s Lord Haldane made a series of judgements that viewed the powers given to the federal and provincial governments in s91 and s92 as "watertight compartments" where little or no overlap may exist. I disscuss the Snider case as an early example of this view. Then we'll look at some of the discussion and criticism that occurred as a result of the stance taken by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Toronto Electric Commissioners v Snider (1925) AG Canada v AG Alberta (the insurance reference) (1916) Montreal v Montreal Street Railway (1912) 1L,,Canadian,Constitutional,Law,,Constitutional,Law,,Erin,Morgan,,McGill,Faculty,of,Law Rob Wiltbank and the LoaLS Team no No Canadian Constitutional Law #6: Division of Powers http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com/2006/10/30/canadian-constitutional-law-6-division-of-powers/ http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com/2006/10/30/canadian-constitutional-law-6-division-of-powers/#comments Mon, 30 Oct 2006 07:54:08 +0000 Neil http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com/wordpress/?p=380 Does prohibition relate to national unity? Apparently so. We look at three early prohibition cases to exemplify how the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council developed two doctrines used to interpret constitutional division of power, the “pith and substance doctrine” and the “double aspect doctrine”. In the third case, the JCPC begins to reverse this trend and we see a movement towards exclusive catagories in division of power. This latter tendancy will be dealt with more in episode #7.

To see the text of Canada’s Constitution, visit the Department of Justice’s website.To see the CBC Canadian Heritage Minutes I love so much, visit http://www.histori.ca/minutes/

Russell v the Queen (1882)
Hodge v the Queen (1883)
AG Ontario v AG Canada (1896)

]]> http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com/2006/10/30/canadian-constitutional-law-6-division-of-powers/feed/ 23:47 Does prohibition relate to national unity? Apparently so. We look at three early prohibition cases to exemplify how the Judicial Committee of the ... Does prohibition relate to national unity? Apparently so. We look at three early prohibition cases to exemplify how the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council developed two doctrines used to interpret constitutional division of power, the "pith and substance doctrine" and the "double aspect doctrine". In the third case, the JCPC begins to reverse this trend and we see a movement towards exclusive catagories in division of power. This latter tendancy will be dealt with more in episode #7. To see the text of Canada's Constitution, visit the Department of Justice's website.To see the CBC Canadian Heritage Minutes I love so much, visit http://www.histori.ca/minutes/ Russell v the Queen (1882) Hodge v the Queen (1883) AG Ontario v AG Canada (1896) 1L,,Canadian,Constitutional,Law,,Constitutional,Law,,Erin,Morgan,,McGill,Faculty,of,Law Rob Wiltbank and the LoaLS Team no No Canadian Constitutional Law #5: The Persons Case! http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com/2006/10/29/canadian-constitutional-law-5-the-persons-case/ http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com/2006/10/29/canadian-constitutional-law-5-the-persons-case/#comments Sun, 29 Oct 2006 09:44:00 +0000 Erin http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com/wordpress/?p=381 The 1929 Persons Case (Edwards v AG Canada), is an extremely important and well-known court case in which Emily Murphy (as one of the famous five) fought all the way to London to gain recognition that the words “qualified persons” in the 1867 Constitution Act include women, thus allowing us to sit in the senate. If you watched CBC in the 90s, you may remember this from yet another important Heritage Moment!

In this podcast, we talk about the role of the judiciary in Canada, the Person’s Case, and the conceptualization of the constitution as a “living tree”.

The Persons Case (Edwards v AG Canada), 1929

]]> http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com/2006/10/29/canadian-constitutional-law-5-the-persons-case/feed/ 19:23 The 1929 Persons Case (Edwards v AG Canada), is an extremely important and well-known court case in which Emily Murphy (as one of the famous ... The 1929 Persons Case (Edwards v AG Canada), is an extremely important and well-known court case in which Emily Murphy (as one of the famous five) fought all the way to London to gain recognition that the words "qualified persons" in the 1867 Constitution Act include women, thus allowing us to sit in the senate. If you watched CBC in the 90s, you may remember this from yet another important Heritage Moment! In this podcast, we talk about the role of the judiciary in Canada, the Person's Case, and the conceptualization of the constitution as a "living tree". The Persons Case (Edwards v AG Canada), 1929 1L,,Canadian,Constitutional,Law,,Constitutional,Law,,Erin,Morgan,,McGill,Faculty,of,Law Rob Wiltbank and the LoaLS Team no No Canadian Constitutional Law #4: Legislative and Executive Powers http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com/2006/10/20/canadian-constitutional-law-4-legislative-and-executive-powers/ http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com/2006/10/20/canadian-constitutional-law-4-legislative-and-executive-powers/#comments Sat, 21 Oct 2006 01:39:00 +0000 Erin http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com/wordpress/?p=382 In this episode, I explain why in Canada the executive and legislative branches are fused, and look at how they operate in relation to one another. I then discuss the Roncarelli case and the Imperial Tobacco case as examples of how rule of law may or may not be used to constrain government power.

British Columbia v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd. (2005)
Roncarelli v. Duplessis (1946)

]]> http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com/2006/10/20/canadian-constitutional-law-4-legislative-and-executive-powers/feed/ 31:31 In this episode, I explain why in Canada the executive and legislative branches are fused, and look at how they operate in relation to one ... In this episode, I explain why in Canada the executive and legislative branches are fused, and look at how they operate in relation to one another. I then discuss the Roncarelli case and the Imperial Tobacco case as examples of how rule of law may or may not be used to constrain government power. British Columbia v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd. (2005) Roncarelli v. Duplessis (1946) 1L,,Canadian,Constitutional,Law,,Constitutional,Law,,Erin,Morgan,,McGill,Faculty,of,Law Rob Wiltbank and the LoaLS Team no No Canadian Constitutional Law #3: History http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com/2006/10/04/canadian-constitutional-law-3-history/ http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com/2006/10/04/canadian-constitutional-law-3-history/#comments Wed, 04 Oct 2006 06:20:55 +0000 Erin http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com/wordpress/?p=383 Why did Papineau stage an armed rebellion? Who is Lord Durham, and why do they no longer show those old Canadian Heritage Moments on TV? All this and more in Canadian Constitutional Law #3! In this episode I outline the historical background and major legislation leading up to confederation in 1867.

Royal Proclaimation 1763
Quebec Act 1774
Constitutional Act 1791
Lord Durham’s Report 1839
The Union Act, 1840

]]> http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com/2006/10/04/canadian-constitutional-law-3-history/feed/ 28:03 Why did Papineau stage an armed rebellion? Who is Lord Durham, and why do they no longer show those old Canadian Heritage Moments on ... Why did Papineau stage an armed rebellion? Who is Lord Durham, and why do they no longer show those old Canadian Heritage Moments on TV? All this and more in Canadian Constitutional Law #3! In this episode I outline the historical background and major legislation leading up to confederation in 1867. Royal Proclaimation 1763 Quebec Act 1774 Constitutional Act 1791 Lord Durham's Report 1839 The Union Act, 1840 1L,,Canadian,Constitutional,Law,,Constitutional,Law,,Erin,Morgan,,McGill,Faculty,of,Law Rob Wiltbank and the LoaLS Team no No Canadian Constitutional Law #2: Underlying Principles of the Constitution http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com/2006/09/23/canadian-constitutional-law-2-underlying-principles-of-the-constitution/ http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com/2006/09/23/canadian-constitutional-law-2-underlying-principles-of-the-constitution/#comments Sun, 24 Sep 2006 02:55:20 +0000 Erin http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com/wordpress/?p=384 If important parts of the constitution are unwritten, what are the sources of these informal componants? In this episode, I discuss the Supreme Court Reference Regarding the Secession of Quebec (1998), a document in which the supreme court identifies four principles underlying the constitution. We then look at the Montfont Hospital case as an example of how later court cases have relied on the secession reference.

Montfort Hospital v. Commission de Restructuration des Services de Sante (1999)
Reference Regarding the Secession of Quebec (1998)

]]> http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com/2006/09/23/canadian-constitutional-law-2-underlying-principles-of-the-constitution/feed/ 24:41 If important parts of the constitution are unwritten, what are the sources of these informal componants? In this episode, I discuss the Supreme Court Reference ... If important parts of the constitution are unwritten, what are the sources of these informal componants? In this episode, I discuss the Supreme Court Reference Regarding the Secession of Quebec (1998), a document in which the supreme court identifies four principles underlying the constitution. We then look at the Montfont Hospital case as an example of how later court cases have relied on the secession reference. Montfort Hospital v. Commission de Restructuration des Services de Sante (1999) Reference Regarding the Secession of Quebec (1998) 1L,,Canadian,Constitutional,Law,,Erin,Morgan,,McGill,Faculty,of,Law Rob Wiltbank and the LoaLS Team no No Canadian Constitutional Law #1: Constitutional Documents http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com/2006/09/17/canadian-constitutional-law-1-constitutional-documents/ http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com/2006/09/17/canadian-constitutional-law-1-constitutional-documents/#comments Mon, 18 Sep 2006 00:08:47 +0000 Erin http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com/wordpress/?p=385 In the first episode of Canadian Constitutional Law, I explain which documents are formally included in the written constitution, and discuss the key points of the major two documents, the Constitution Act 1867 (formerly known as the BNA Act) and the Constitution Act 1982. The latter document also includes the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which will be discussed in more detail in future episodes.

Constitution Act 1867
British North America Act 1867
Canada Act 1982
Constitution Act 1982
Charter of Rights and Freedoms (1982)
Statute of Westminster (1931)
Regina v Drybones (1970)

]]> http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com/2006/09/17/canadian-constitutional-law-1-constitutional-documents/feed/ 17:15 In the first episode of Canadian Constitutional Law, I explain which documents are formally included in the written constitution, and discuss the key points of ... In the first episode of Canadian Constitutional Law, I explain which documents are formally included in the written constitution, and discuss the key points of the major two documents, the Constitution Act 1867 (formerly known as the BNA Act) and the Constitution Act 1982. The latter document also includes the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which will be discussed in more detail in future episodes. Constitution Act 1867 British North America Act 1867 Canada Act 1982 Constitution Act 1982 Charter of Rights and Freedoms (1982) Statute of Westminster (1931) Regina v Drybones (1970) 1L,,Canadian,Constitutional,Law,,Constitutional,Law,,Erin,Morgan,,McGill,Faculty,of,Law Rob Wiltbank and the LoaLS Team no No