Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Justices of the Supreme Court of Canada have the option of releasing reasons for a unanimous decision anonymously by simply attributing the judgment to "The Court". The practice began around 1979 by Chief Justice Bora Laskin , borrowing from the US Supreme Court practice of anonymizing certain unanimous decisions. [ 1 ]
Decisions that do not note a Justice delivering the Court's reason are per coram. Multiple concurrences and dissents within a case are numbered, with joining votes numbered accordingly. Justices occasionally join multiple reasons in a single case; each vote is subdivided accordingly. Multiple unnumbered reasons are jointly written or delivered.
R v Bissonnette, 2022 SCC 23 is a landmark [2] decision of the Supreme Court of Canada which held that life sentences without a realistic possibility of parole constituted cruel and unusual punishment.
Referring to a Canadian Supreme Court decision, he said: “The court found that Quebec did not meet the threshold of a colonial people or an oppressed people, nor could it be suggested that ...
Proper approach to judicial review of discretionary administrative decisions engaging Charter protections; Whether decision of Minister of Education, Recreation and Sports requiring a proposed alternative program being entirely secular in approach is reasonable given the statutory objectives of the program and s. 2(a) of the Charter, and ...
The Supreme Court of the Canadian province of British Columbia on Friday blocked new provincial laws against public consumption of illegal substances. The ruling imposes a temporary injunction ...
The Supreme Court of Canada is the court of last resort and final appeal in Canada. Cases successfully appealed to the Court are generally of national importance. Once a case is decided, the Court publishes written reasons for the decision, that consist of one or more opinions from any number of the nine justices.
Chief Justice McLachlin, writing for a unanimous court, holds that sections 33 and 77 to 85 of the IRPA unreasonably violates sections 7, 9 and 10 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. On the section 1 analysis for justification of the violation the Court held that the certificate process was not minimally impairing.