In this podcast we will consider the issue of constitutional review, specifically whether section 7 of the charter is violated by deportation.
Singh v Minister of Employment and Immigration (1985)
Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) v Chiarelli (1992)
Suresh v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2002)
In this podcast, we will consider the different types of status that may be held by an individual in Canada – Citizen, Permanent Resident, and Foreign National. We will begin a preliminary examination of the effect a different status can make on one’s rights, which shall be expanded upon throughout the course.
Chen v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2001)
Langer v Canada(Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1995)
Romans v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2001)
This episode is a continuation of the discussion of open boarders from the previous podcast. We will focus on the writings of Catherine Dauvergne and Donald Galloway.
In this podcast, we will consider some of the theories of state sovereignty and the arguments for and against open boarders. This topic will span two podcasts. The first will focus on the writings of Carens and Walzer.
This is the first podcast in Canadian Immigration and refugee law. We begin by considering the historical evolution of immigration within Canada and then turn to some early immigration cases to consider the role that racism played in the immigration process.
Union Colliery Co v Bryden (1899)
Quong Wing v the King (1914)
Canada v Singh
re Munshi Singh (1914)
Mack v Canada (AG) (2002)
Janet Dench, “A Hundred Years of Imm to Canada 1900-1999: A Chronology focusing on refugees and discrimination” (2000). (Online, http://www.web.net/~ccr/history.html)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)