Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
A court decision ruled that a mathematical STQ must contain at least three operations to actually be a test of skill. [4] For example, a sample question is "(16 × 5) - (12 ÷ 4)" (Answer: 77). The winner should not receive any assistance (e.g. using a calculator, asking another individual to calculate the answer for the winner) in answering ...
In Canada (Attorney General) v. Federation of Law Societies of Canada, 2015 SCC 7, it was held as a principle of fundamental justice that the state cannot impose obligations on lawyers that undermine their duty of commitment to clients. The case arose in the content of federal money laundering legislation which required lawyers to retain ...
(d) to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal; This right has generated some case law, as courts have struck down reverse onus clauses as violating the presumption of innocence. This first occurred in R. v. Oakes (1986) in respect to the Narcotics Control Act.
In the case of duress the Supreme Court of Canada struck down the statutory provision as violative of s. 7 of the Charter, leaving the broader common law defence instead. Statutory encroachments on the scope of common law defences can violate s. 7 of the Charter if they unacceptably reduce the fault requirement of offences.
After Law v. Canada (1999) the question of whether dignity was affected was key to a section 15 analysis. In R. v. Kapp (2008), the problems with the dignity analysis were recognized and the dignity analysis was jettisoned. The Court established a two-part test based on the one found in Andrews v.
In legal and illicit markets, weed products turn up with hidden health threats. The similarities are no shock, said industry leaders. Cannabis conundrum: Legal doesn't mean clean; illicit isn't ...
Reenactment of the Code, with modernization of provisions. It abolished all common law offences (other than for contempt of court), as well as any offences created by the British Parliament or in effect under an Act or ordinance in any place before becoming part of Canada. [18] Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1968–69, S.C. 1968–69, c. 38 [19]
R v Grant, 2009 SCC 32 is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on section 9, section 10 and section 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ("Charter"). The Court created a number of factors to consider when determining whether a person had been detained for the purpose of sections 9 and 10 of the Charter .