Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Section 121 remains concerned with keeping Canada economically united, and section 6 is primarily concerned with an individual's freedom of movement. [ 3 ] The Supreme Court has compared section 6 to section 2(a) of the 1960 Canadian Bill of Rights , which bars "the arbitrary detention, imprisonment or exile of any person."
[7] [9] Some authors such as Professor Vaver argue that this revisionism seems wrong given prior case law and the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Consolboard Inc. v. MacMillan Bloedel (Saskatchewan) Ltd. which recognized [7] [10] that the Act's disclosure provision is badly drafted and cannot be read literally.
The Senate Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament (RPRD) (French: Commité permanent du Sénat du Règlement, de la procédure et des droits du Parlement) is a committee of the Senate of Canada. As a standing committee, the rules of the Senate re-establish the committee at the opening of every new session of the ...
Section 16 itself expands upon language rights in the Constitution Act, 1867; whereas section 133 of the Constitution Act, 1867 merely allowed for both languages to be used in the Parliament of Canada and in the Quebec legislature, and in some courts, section 16 goes further by allowing bilingualism in the federal and New Brunswick ...
Section 16.1 (pronounced "sixteen point one") is not to be confused with subsection 16(1) ("sixteen one"), which is part of section 16 and was part of the original 1982 text. Section 16.1 is a separate section; [1] the "point one" numbering indicates that this new section was added between two existing sections without renumbering them.
Provisions similar to s. 210 of the UK Companies Act 1948 were first introduced into Canadian law through the 1975 passage of the Canada Business Corporations Act. [1] It incorporated recommendations made in 1962 by the UK Jenkins Committee on Company Law for removing the linkage of the remedy with that of winding-up and for broadening its scope. [2]
Section 20 reads: 20.(1) Any member of the public in Canada has the right to communicate with, and to receive available services from, any head or central office of an institution of the Parliament or government of Canada in English or French, and has the same right with respect to any other office of any such institution where
Canada (AG) v Bedford, 2013 SCC 72, [2013] 3 SCR 1101 is a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the Canadian law of sex work. [ 2 ] [ 3 ] The applicants, Terri-Jean Bedford, Amy Lebovitch and Valerie Scott, argued that Canada's prostitution laws were unconstitutional. [ 4 ]