Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The court found that the provisions of the act infringed upon the section 2(b) rights of both candidates and electors. However, on appeal, the Court of Appeal for Ontario stayed the decision of the lower court, and a year later, it ruled that the provisions were constitutional. Subsequently, the City of Toronto appealed to the Supreme Court of ...
The Supreme Court justices Beverley McLachlin, Louis LeBel, Rosalie Silberman Abella, Marshall Rothstein, Thomas Albert Cromwell, Michael J. Moldaver, and Richard Wagner "unanimously determined that Ontario has jurisdiction to take up land covered by the Ontario Boundaries Extension Act—land also covered under the 1873 Treaty 3—thus "limiting First Nation harvesting rights."
The Supreme Court of Ontario was a Section 96 court with inherent jurisdiction. The Appellate Division was later transformed into the Court of Appeal for Ontario . In 1989 the Courts of Justice Amendment Act, 1989 was enacted by the Government to create one large superior trial court for Ontario.
By the Law Reform Act, 1909, [61] which came into force on 1 January 1913, the Supreme Court of Judicature for Ontario became the Supreme Court of Ontario, with two branches: (1) the Appellate Division; and (2) the High Court Division. The former was only appellate while the latter was a court of original jurisdiction; however, any judge of the ...
R v Ron Engineering and Construction (Eastern) Ltd, [1] of 1981 is the leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on the law of tendering for contracts. The case concerned the issue of whether the acceptance of a call for tenders for a construction job could constitute a binding contract. The Court held that indeed in many cases the submission of ...
Weber v Ontario Hydro, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 929 is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada where the Court held that a labour arbitration board was a "court of competent jurisdiction" within the meaning of section 24(1) of the Charter, and could grant declarations and damages.
A majority of the Supreme Court of Canada, encompassing six of seven justices, allowed the appeal and struck down both laws in question. The majority opinion sought to "clarify the scope of the constitutional protection of collective bargaining" recognized in BC Health Services and Fraser. [5] The Court summarized section 2(d) protections as ...
M v H [1999] 2 S.C.R. 3, is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the rights of cohabiting same-sex couples to equal treatment under the law. The court found that the definition of spouse in section 29 of Ontario's Family Law Act, which extended spousal support rights to unmarried cohabiting opposite-sex couples but not same-sex couples, was discriminatory and therefore ...