Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The reference to a fair hearing allows one a right to "full answer and defence", a right also based in section 7 of the Charter ("fundamental justice"). This has led to a controversial string of decisions surrounding the rape shield law, starting with R. v. Seaboyer (1991) and ending with R. v. Mills (1999).
John G. Diefenbaker, M.P., speaking in the House of Commons, Ottawa, Canada. In 1936, four years before being elected to Parliament, John Diefenbaker began drafting his Bill of Rights. As a young boy, he saw injustice first-hand in the form of discrimination against French-Canadians, natives, Métis and European immigrants. [12]
[49] [50] In a decision released July 12, 2017, the Federal Court of Canada concluded that the York University fair dealing guidelines were not fair. [51] In that decision, emphasis was given to the second part of a two-stage analysis, in which a user must first identify whether a use was allowed before then assessing whether dealing is fair ...
Natural justice is identified with the two constituents of a fair hearing, [3]: 322 which are the rule against bias (nemo iudex in causa sua, or "no man a judge in his own cause"), and the right to a fair hearing (audi alteram partem, or "hear the other side"). [7] The requirements of natural justice or a duty to act fairly depend on the context.
Decorative 18th century door piece from the Vierschaar (city tribunal) in City Hall of The Hague, by Jacob de Wit, illustrating audi alteram partem.. Audi alteram partem (or audiatur et altera pars) is a Latin phrase meaning "listen to the other side", or "let the other side be heard as well". [1]
The 2004 ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada in CCH Canadian Ltd. v. Law Society of Upper Canada has gone far in clarifying the concept of fair dealing in Canada. In considering fair dealing the Court makes the following general observation: It is important to clarify some general considerations about exceptions to copyright infringement.
Get AOL Mail for FREE! Manage your email like never before with travel, photo & document views. Personalize your inbox with themes & tabs. You've Got Mail!
R v Beaulac [1999] 1 S.C.R. 768 is a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada on language rights. Notably, the majority adopted a liberal and purposive interpretation of language rights in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, overturning conservative case law such as Société des Acadiens v.