Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Law Society of Manitoba], 2017 CanLII 36583, [2017] 1 SCR 360, Supreme Court (Canada) L "Legal Professions Act". 16 July 2011. Archived from the original on 16 July 2011 "Legal Profession Act, R.S.A. 2000, s. 41" (PDF). Edmonton, Alberta: King's Printer. Revised Statutes of Alberta 2000 Chapter L-8 and current as of December 15, 2022.
The Coalition appealed the fair dealing issue to the Supreme Court maintaining that the Board's conclusion was not in accordance with the test in CCH Canadian Ltd. v. Law Society of Upper Canada, [2004] 1 SCR 339 and was therefore unreasonable. [5]
Canadian constitutional law (French: droit constitutionnel du Canada) is the area of Canadian law relating to the interpretation and application of the Constitution of Canada by the courts. All laws of Canada, both provincial and federal, must conform to the Constitution and any laws inconsistent with the Constitution have no force or effect.
There were also discussions to invoke the notwithstanding clause following the Supreme Court of Canada's 1998 decision in Vriend v Alberta, but were resisted by Premier Ralph Klein at the time. [44] In 2024, Premier Danielle Smith has said she might use the notwithstanding clause to protect a gender-affirming healthcare ban. [45]
The court may require that sureties (persons similar to co-signers on a loan) be added to the recognizance. The court has the ability to name specific individuals as sureties. [27] Sureties can apply to the court to be relieved of their obligations. This will usually result in the accused being arrested and held for a new release hearing. [34]
The Supreme Court of Canada was mentioned for the first time in a constitutional document by the Constitution Act, 1982. The Supreme Court is referred to twice. First, s. 41 lists several amendments to the Constitution of Canada requiring unanimous consent. S. 41(d) includes the "composition of the Supreme Court of Canada" in this list.
Dr. Darren Lund filed a complaint about Boissoin's remarks to the commission. Although a human rights panel found that the letter infringed the Alberta Human Rights Act, [41] the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench overturned the ruling on appeal. [42] The Alberta Court of Appeal confirmed the Queen's Bench decision. [43]
This 2017 BC court judgment is significant as it is the "first appellate level case addressing a provincial general anti-avoidance rule in Canada." [34] The BC Court of Appeals said that since the Canadian "taxation regime is not a harmonious scheme"—it is a " patchwork where provinces have the power to legislate as they please."