Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The interpretation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms also makes use of the living tree doctrine. Chief Justice Antonio Lamer stated in Re B.C. Motor Vehicle Act, "If the newly planted 'living tree' which is the Charter is to have the possibility of growth and adjustment over time, care must be taken to ensure that historical materials, such as the Minutes of Proceedings and ...
Guindon v Canada, 2015 SCC 41 is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the distinction between criminal and regulatory penalties, for the purposes of s.11 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It also provides guidance on when the Court will consider constitutional issues when such had not been argued in the lower courts.
The Supreme Court ruled that the statute was an unconstitutional violation of section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, deciding that there was no true secular basis for the legislation and its only purpose was, in effect, to establish a state religious-based requirement, and was therefore invalid.
The 9th Circuit was clearly correct as a matter of law: It violates the 8th Amendment to punish a person for an activity — sleeping — that is essentially beyond his or her control. And it also ...
On appeal, the Supreme Court of Canada reversed this decision. It held that procedural fairness required the decision-maker to consider the human rights of Baker's children. Children's human rights are outlined in the international Convention on the Rights of the Child. The Supreme Court said that decision-makers must be "reasonable".
Suresh v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in the areas of constitutional law and administrative law.The Court held that, under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, in most circumstances the government cannot deport someone to a country where they risk being tortured, but refugee claimants can be deported to their ...
Chaoulli v Quebec (AG) [2005] 1 S.C.R. 791, 2005 SCC 35, was a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada of which the Court ruled that the Quebec Health Insurance Act and the Hospital Insurance Act prohibiting private medical insurance in the face of long wait times, up to 9 months, violated the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms.
The U.S. Supreme Court has recently taken up a case from Oregon about laws that restrict sleeping outside. Can sleeping outside be criminalized? Supreme Court decision could affect Columbia