|
1994 Reasons Of The Supreme Court Of Canada
The list below consists of the reasons delivered from the bench by the Supreme Court of Canada The Supreme Court of Canada (SCC; french: Cour suprême du Canada, CSC) is the Supreme court, highest court in the Court system of Canada, judicial system of Canada. It comprises List of Justices of the Supreme Court of Canada, nine justices, wh ... during 1994. This list, however, does not include decisions on motions. Reasons References * 1994 decisionsCanLII {{Supreme Court of Canada Reasons Of The Supreme Court Of Canada, 1994 Supreme Court of Canada reasons by year * ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Supreme Court Of Canada
The Supreme Court of Canada (SCC; french: Cour suprême du Canada, CSC) is the Supreme court, highest court in the Court system of Canada, judicial system of Canada. It comprises List of Justices of the Supreme Court of Canada, nine justices, whose decisions are the ultimate application of Canadian law, and grants permission to between 40 and 75 litigants each year to appeal decisions rendered by provincial, territorial and federal Appeal, appellate courts. The Supreme Court is bijural, hearing cases from two major legal traditions (common law and Civil law (legal system), civil law) and bilingual, hearing cases in both Official bilingualism in Canada, official languages of Canada (English language, English and French language, French). The effects of any judicial decision on the common law, on the interpretation of statutes, or on any other application of law, can, in effect, be nullified by legislation, unless the particular decision of the court in question involves applicatio ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
R V Finta
''R v Finta'', 9941 SCR 701 is a case decided by the Supreme Court of Canada. The Court found that a 45-year delay before charging an individual under the crimes against humanity provisions of the ''Criminal Code'' does not fall within the meaning of "unreasonable delay" under the ''Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms''. The period for "unreasonable delay" begins from the point that charges are laid. Background Imre Finta was a commander of the Gendarmerie in Szeged, Hungary, during World War II. After the war, he immigrated to Canada and became a citizen in 1956. Evidence was discovered which suggested he may have participated in the deportation of Jews from Hungary during the war. In 1988, he was charged with unlawful confinement, robbery, kidnapping and manslaughter under the war crimes provisions in the ''Criminal Code''. During the pre-trial, Finta's lawyers, Doug Christie and Barbara Kulaszka, challenged the constitutionality of the criminal charges as a violation of ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
R V Mohan
is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on the use of expert witnesses in trial testimony. Background Chikmaglur Mohan was a pediatrician in North Bay, Ontario. He was charged with sexual assault of four teenage patients. During his trial, the defence tried to put Dr. Hill, a psychiatrist, on the stand as an expert on sexual assault. Hill intended to testify that the perpetrator of the offence must have possessed several abnormal characteristics, which Mohan did not have. In a voir dire hearing, Hill testified that the culprit in the first three assaults was likely a pedophile, while the fourth assault would have been by a sexual psychopath. This evidence was held to be inadmissible by the judge. Mohan was eventually convicted at trial but his conviction was overturned on appeal. The issue before the Supreme Court was whether Hill's testimony could be admitted as that of an expert witness, and whether the testimony would violate the rule against character evidence. Opini ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
R V Bartle
''R v Bartle'', 9943 SCR 173 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on the right to retain and instruct counsel under section 10(b) of the ''Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms'' ("''Charter''"). The Court held that a police officer is required to hold off on his or her investigation upon arresting an individual until the detainee has been informed of his or her rights and given sufficient information and access to contact a private lawyer or duty counsel. The case applied the earlier Supreme Court of Canada decision '' R v Brydges''. The judgment was released with three other decisions: ''R v Pozniak'', ''R v Harper'', ''R v Matheson'' and '' R v Prosper''. Background Police investigation On 22 June 1991, Kenneth Bartle was arrested for impaired operation of a motor vehicle. The police officer then read the following to Bartle from a pre-printed card: You have the right to retain and instruct counsel without delay. You have the right to telephone any lawyer that yo ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
R V Prosper
''R v Prosper'', 9943 S.C.R. 236 is a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the right to duty counsel upon arrest or detainment by police under section 10(b) of the ''Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms''. The Court found that merely reading the accused his or her rights is insufficient to discharge the right to counsel; the police must also provide the accused with access to legal aid or duty counsel. Cyril Prosper was pulled over by the police for driving erratically. The police noticed that he was severely inebriated and arrested him. They read him his rights and provided him access to a telephone and telephone directory to call a lawyer. He declined to call a lawyer in private practice as he said he could not afford it. He then agreed to take a Breathalyzer test. At trial Prosper successfully argued that Breathalyzer results were taken in violation of his ''Charter'' rights to counsel under section 10(b). The question before the Supreme Court was first, whether s ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
R V Daviault
''R v Daviault'' 9943 S.C.R. 63, is a Supreme Court of Canada decision on the availability of the defence of intoxication for "general intent" criminal offences. The Leary rule which eliminated the defence was found unconstitutional in violation of both section 7 and 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Instead, intoxication can only be used as a defence where it is so extreme that it is akin to automatism or insanity. Background On May 30, 1989, Henri Daviault, a 73-year-old chronic alcoholic, was asked to get some alcohol for a friend of his wife. The woman was a semi-paralyzed 65-year-old and required a wheelchair. Daviault brought a 40oz of brandy to the woman's house around 6pm. She drank half a glass and then passed out. Daviault drank the rest of the bottle while she slept. Some time in the evening she went to the washroom and was accosted by Daviault who took her into the bedroom and sexually assaulted her. Daviault was arrested and charged for sexual assa ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Native Women's Assn Of Canada V Canada
''Native Women's Assn of Canada v Canada'', 9943 S.C.R. 627, was a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada on section 2, section 15 and section 28 of the ''Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms'', in which the Court decided against the claim that the government of Canada had an obligation to financially support an interest group in constitutional negotiations, to allow the group to speak for its people. The case resulted from negotiations for the Charlottetown Accord, in which various groups representing Aboriginal peoples in Canada were financially supported by the government, but the Native Women's Association of Canada (NWAC) was not. Since NWAC claimed the other Aboriginal groups primarily represented Aboriginal men, it argued that section 28 (sexual equality under the Charter) could be used so that section 2 (freedom of expression) required the government to provide an equal benefit to Aboriginal women, supposedly represented by NWAC. The case could be seen as unusual, ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
R V Heywood
''R v Heywood'' 1994 3 S.C.R. 761 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on the concept of fundamental justice in section seven of the Charter. The Court found that section 179(1)(b) of the Criminal Code for vagrancy was overbroad and thus violated section 7 and could not be saved under section 1. Background In 1987, Heywood was convicted under section 246.1(1) (now s. 271(1)) of the Criminal Code for sexual assault of children. The conviction made him subject to section 179(1)(b) which prevented certain convicted individuals from loitering. In July 1989, Heywood was arrested in Beacon Hill Park in Victoria for loitering "at or near a playground" under section 179(1). He had been spotted several times previously near the playground carrying a camera with a telephoto lens. Upon arrest the police got a search warrant and found collections of pictures of children at play. At trial, Heywood argued that the law violated section 7, 11(d), 12, and 15 of the Charter. The court f ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Dagenais V Canadian Broadcasting Corp
''Dagenais v Canadian Broadcasting Corp'', 9943 S.C.R. 835 is the leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on publication bans and their relation to the right to freedom of expression under section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It was held that judges have a common law discretionary authority to impose publication bans on information revealed in a criminal trial. The judge, however, must weigh competing rights, such as freedom of expression and right to a fair trial, to mizzen the violation of rights. It was further held that the media has a right to appeal a decision of a publication ban. Background Four former and present members of the Christian Brothers, a Catholic order, were charged with sexual abuse of young boys while they were teachers at an Ontario Catholic school. During their trial the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation produced a dramatic mini-series, based on another sexual abuse scandal at Mount Cashel Orphanage, named ''The Boys of St. Vincent ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
R V Laba
''R v Laba'', 9943 S.C.R. 965 is a Supreme Court of Canada decision on the presumption of innocence under section 11(d) of the ''Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms'' and the limitations provision under section 1. Background Six men were charged under s. 394(1)(b) of the ''Criminal Code'' for selling or purchasing "any rock, mineral or other substance that contains precious metals unless he establishes that he is the owner or agent of the owner or is acting under lawful authority". The six men challenged the reverse onus clause which required that the accused establish that he or she was acting under lawful authority as a violation of the presumption of innocence. Reasons of the court Justice Sopinka, writing for the Court, examined whether the provision criminalizing the trade in stolen precious metal ore could be justified under section 1 as the Crown had already conceded that it violated section 11(d). Sopinka observed that there were a variety of situations where innocent ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Tolofson V Jensen
''Tolofson v Jensen'', 9943 S.C.R. 1022 is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on conflict of laws in tort. The Court held that the primary determiner in selecting a country's law in tort should be the '' lex loci'' (the location where the tort occurred). The case was decided with ''Lucas (Litigation guardian of) v Gagnon''. Background Prior to this case, the leading case on the matter was '' McLean v Pettigrew'', 945S.C.R. 62 which stated that the proper law to apply would always be the ''lex fori'', the local law of the court, irrespective of the connection with the jurisdiction. Tolofson case A father and son from British Columbia are driving in Saskatchewan and are in a motor vehicle accident with Leroy Jensen, a resident of Saskatchewan. The son, Kim Tolofson, sues both Jensen and his father. Under Saskatchewan law the claimant must prove gross negligence in order for a gratuitous passenger to recover and the limitation period is 12 months. Kim did not sue for ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
1994 In Canada
Events from the year 1994 in Canada. Incumbents Crown * Monarch – Elizabeth II Federal government * Governor General – Ray Hnatyshyn * Prime Minister – Jean Chrétien * Chief Justice – Antonio Lamer (Quebec) * Parliament – 35th (from January 14) Provincial governments Lieutenant governors *Lieutenant Governor of Alberta – Gordon Towers *Lieutenant Governor of British Columbia – David Lam * Lieutenant Governor of Manitoba – Yvon Dumont *Lieutenant Governor of New Brunswick – Gilbert Finn (until June 21) then Margaret McCain * Lieutenant Governor of Newfoundland – Frederick Russell * Lieutenant Governor of Nova Scotia – Lloyd Crouse (until June 23) then James Kinley *Lieutenant Governor of Ontario – Hal Jackman * Lieutenant Governor of Prince Edward Island – Marion Reid * Lieutenant Governor of Quebec – Martial Asselin *Lieutenant Governor of Saskatchewan – Sylvia Fedoruk (until May 31) then Jack Wiebe Premiers *Prem ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
