Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Since the Supreme Court denies leave in most cases, the Court of Appeal is the final court for most matters originating in Alberta. Unlike the Court of King's Bench, the Court of Appeal has no inherent jurisdiction and therefore requires a statute to grant it the power to hear a matter before a panel is convened. As a court of a province, it is ...
The Alberta Court of Justice is an inferior court of first instance in Alberta, which means decisions from the Court of Justice may be appealed at the Court of King's Bench of Alberta and/or the Court of Appeal of Alberta. The Alberta Court of Justice hears the majority of criminal and civil cases in Alberta. All of Alberta’s criminal cases ...
Central Alberta Dairy Pool v Alberta (Human Rights Commission), [1990] 2 SCR 489, is a leading human rights law decision of the Supreme Court of Canada.The Court expanded on the concept of accommodation up to undue hardship first established in Ontario (Human Rights Commission) v Simpsons-Sears Ltd, [1985] 2 SCR 536 and provided a set of factors to consider when evaluating undue hardship.
In 1921, the Supreme Court was reorganized to have an independent trial division (Supreme Court of Alberta Trial Division), and an independent appellate division (Supreme Court of Alberta Appellate Division), the precursor to the Court of Appeal of Alberta. On June 30, 1979, the Supreme Court Trial Division was renamed the "Court of Queen's ...
Schmidt v Calgary Board of Education (Alberta Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Sinclair, Clement and Moir, JJ.A. October 26, 1976) is the basis for the legal requirement in Alberta that, where a separate school jurisdiction exists (they exist in only some of Alberta), members of the minority faith that established the separate school jurisdiction must be considered and treated as residents ...
Vriend v Alberta [1998] 1 S.C.R. 493 is an important Supreme Court of Canada case that determined that a legislative omission can be the subject of a Charter violation. The case involved a dismissal of a teacher because of his sexual orientation and was an issue of great controversy during that period.
On appeal, the Alberta Court of Appeal overturned the decision, holding that section 213(a) violated section 7 and section 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ("Charter"). The issue before the Supreme Court was whether the appeal court was correct in holding section 213(a) as a violation of sections 7 and 11(d) of the Charter.
The Supreme Court had partially invalided (for extreme intoxication akin to automatism) a similar common law rule (the Leary rule) in R v Daviault, and it was in fact the backlash to Daviault which had even spurred Parliament to enact section 33.1. Judge Willie Dewit for the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench struck down the provision. Judge ...