|
Canadian Constitutional Law
Canadian constitutional law () is the area of Canadian law relating to the interpretation and application of the Constitution of Canada by the courts. All laws of Canada, both provincial and federal, must conform to the Constitution and any laws inconsistent with the Constitution have no force or effect. In '' Reference re Secession of Quebec'', the Supreme Court characterized four fundamental and organizing principles of the Constitution (though not exhaustive): federalism; democracy; constitutionalism and the rule of law; and protection of minorities. Reviewable matters and legal standing Under the authority of section 52(1) of the ''Constitution Act, 1982'', courts may review all matters of law. Accordingly, the courts have a broad scope of competence. Constitutional issues come before the court through disputes between parties as well as through reference questions. The court has the discretion to hear any constitutional issues as long as there is a sufficient legal comp ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Canadian Law
The legal system of Canada is pluralist: its foundations lie in the English common law system (inherited from its period as a colony of the British Empire), the French civil law system (inherited from its French Empire past), and Indigenous law systems developed by the various Indigenous Nations. The Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of the country, and consists of written text and unwritten conventions. The ''Constitution Act, 1867'' (known as the British North America Act prior to 1982), affirmed governance based on parliamentary precedent and divided powers between the federal and provincial governments. The Statute of Westminster 1931 granted full autonomy, and the '' Constitution Act, 1982'' ended all legislative ties to Britain, as well as adding a constitutional amending formula and the ''Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms''. The ''Charter'' guarantees basic rights and freedoms that usually cannot be over-ridden by any government—though a notwithstand ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Osgoode Hall Law Journal
The ''Osgoode Hall Law Journal'' () is a law review affiliated with Osgoode Hall Law School of York University, Toronto, Canada Toronto ( , locally pronounced or ) is the List of the largest municipalities in Canada by population, most populous city in Canada. It is the capital city of the Provinces and territories of Canada, Canadian province of Ontario. With a p .... It has been publishing continuously since 1958. References External links * Canadian law journals Academic journals established in 1958 English-language journals 1958 establishments in Ontario Osgoode Hall Law School {{law-journal-stub ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
R V Big M Drug Mart Ltd
''R v Big M Drug Mart Ltd'' ''(Her Majesty The Queen in Right of Canada v Big M Drug Mart Ltd)'' is a landmark decision by Supreme Court of Canada where the Court struck down the federal '' Lord's Day Act'' for violating section 2 of the ''Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms''. This case had many firsts in constitutional law including being the first to interpret section two. Background In 1978, Nancy Lockhart and Michael Lasrado opened Big M Drug Mart, a supermarket in the Forest Lawn community in Calgary. Big M and other stores remained open on Sundays despite the prohibition in the ''Lord's Day Act'' as revenue exceeded the small fines of between $15–$40 ($–$ in ). On Sunday, May 30, 1982, Calgary police officers entered Big M Drug Mart and observed the sale of groceries, plastic cups, and a bicycle lock to customers in contravention of the federal ''Lord's Day Act''. At the Provincial Court of Alberta, Justice Brian Stevenson acquitted Big M Drug Mart and fou ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Section Thirty-one Of The Canadian Charter Of Rights And Freedoms
Section 31 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a part of the Constitution of Canada, which clarifies that the Charter does not increase the powers of either the federal government or the legislatures of the provinces of Canada. As a result, only the courts may enforce the rights in the Charter. Text The section reads, Enforcement of the Charter As the government of Canada notes, this shows the Charter does not disturb the balance of the distribution of legislative powers under the Constitution Act, 1867. Constitutional scholar Peter Hogg has called section 31 a "cautionary provision." He specifically notes that section 31 denies the federal Parliament of Canada any additional powers. Indeed, section 31 is a departure from the educational rights in the Constitution Act, 1867. Section 93(4) of that Act gives the federal Parliament the power to intervene if a provincial government fails to respect certain rights. The federal government could then pass and enforce ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Section Thirty-two Of The Canadian Charter Of Rights And Freedoms
Section 32 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms concerns the application and scope of the Charter. Only claims based on the type of law contemplated by this section can be brought before a court. Section 32(1) describes the basis on which all rights can be enforced. Section 32(2) was added in order to delay the enforcement of section 15 until government was given time to amend their laws to conform to the section. Text Under the heading "Application of Charter" the section states: The purpose of this section is to make it clear that the Charter only applies to governments, and not to private individuals, businesses or other organizations. Interpretation The meaning of section 32(1) was first examined in '' RWDSU v. Dolphin Delivery Ltd.'' The Courts found that the "authority" of government consisted of all laws created by the three branches of government (executive, legislative, and administrative), as well as any rules, or regulations created by "government acto ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Section Four Of The Canadian Charter Of Rights And Freedoms
Section 4 of the ''Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms'' is the second of three democratic rights sections in the ''Charter'', enshrining a constitutional requirement for regular federal, provincial and territorial elections that cannot be arbitrarily delayed or suspended. Subsection 4(1) provides that the maximum term of the House of Commons of Canada, and of all provincial and territorial legislative assemblies, is five years. A narrow exception to this rule in case of war or rebellion is provided under subsection 4(2), but any extension would still require support of a two-thirds majority in each affected legislature. Text The section provides that, Background Prior to the enactment of the ''Charter'' as part of the ''Constitution Act, 1982'', the Constitution of Canada already limited the length which the House of Commons to not more than 5 years under section 50 of the ''British North America Act, 1867''. It reads, An exception was made to the section 50 rule in 1 ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Canadian Charter Of Rights And Freedoms
The ''Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms'' (), often simply referred to as the ''Charter'' in Canada, is a bill of rights entrenched in the Constitution of Canada, forming the first part of the '' Constitution Act, 1982''. The ''Charter'' guarantees certain political rights to Canadian citizens and guarantees the civil rights of everyone in Canada. It is designed to unify Canadians around a set of principles that embody those rights. The ''Charter'' was proclaimed in force by Queen Elizabeth II of Canada on April 17, 1982, as part of the ''Constitution Act, 1982''. The ''Charter'' was preceded by the '' Canadian Bill of Rights'', enacted in 1960, which was a federal statute rather than a constitutional document. The ''Bill of Rights'' exemplified an international trend towards formalizing human rights protections following the United Nations' ''Universal Declaration of Human Rights'', instigated by the country's movement for human rights and freedoms that emerged af ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Every Canadian Needs A Copy
{{disambig ...
Every may refer to: People * Every (surname), including a list of people surnamed Every or Van Every * Every Maclean, New Zealand politician in the 19th century * Every baronets, a title in the Baronetage of England Other * Suzuki Every, a kei truck produced by Japanese automaker Suzuki *''every'', one of the English determiners See also * Universal quantification, in predicate logic * *Each (other) *Everybody (other) *Everyone (other) *Everything (other) Everything is all that exists. Everything may also refer to: * Universe, everything humans perceive to exist * Cosmos, the universe as an orderly system * World, the planet Earth, or the sum of human civilization * ''everything'', an English inde ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Judicial Review
Judicial review is a process under which a government's executive, legislative, or administrative actions are subject to review by the judiciary. In a judicial review, a court may invalidate laws, acts, or governmental actions that are incompatible with a higher authority. For example, an executive decision may be invalidated for being unlawful, or a statute may be invalidated for violating the terms of a constitution. Judicial review is one of the checks and balances in the separation of powers—the power of the judiciary to supervise (judicial supervision) the legislative and executive branches when the latter exceed their authority. The doctrine varies between jurisdictions, so the procedure and scope of judicial review may differ between and within countries. The judiciary in United States has been described as having unusually strong powers of judicial review from a comparative perspective. General principles Judicial review can be understood in the context o ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Judicial Committee Of The Privy Council
The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (JCPC) is the highest court of appeal for the Crown Dependencies, the British Overseas Territories, some Commonwealth countries and a few institutions in the United Kingdom. Established on 14 August 1833 to hear appeals formerly heard by the King-in-Council, the Privy Council formerly acted as the court of last resort for the entire British Empire, except for the United Kingdom itself.P. A. Howell, ''The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, 1833–1876: Its Origins, Structure, and Development'', Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1979 Formally a statutory committee of His Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council, the Judicial Committee consists of senior judges who are Privy Councillors; they are predominantly justices of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom and senior judges from the Commonwealth of Nations. Although it is often simply referred to as the "Privy Council", the Judicial Committee is only one constitu ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
British North America Act, 1915
The British North America Acts, 1867–1975, are a series of acts of Parliament that were at the core of the Constitution of Canada. Most were enacted by the Parliament of the United Kingdom and some by the Parliament of Canada. Some of the acts were repealed in Canada by the ''Constitution Act, 1982''. The rest were renamed the Constitution Acts and amended, with those changes having effect only in Canada. The Canadian versions of the Constitution Acts are part of the Constitution of Canada, and can be amended only in Canada. The British versions of the acts which remain in force in Britain are ordinary British statutes. They can be amended by the British Parliament, but those amendments would not have any effect in Canada. They retain their original names and do not include any amendments made after 1964. As used in these acts, the term "British North America" (BNA) originally referred to the British colonies in North America which formed Confederation in 1867: the Provinc ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
John Sankey, 1st Viscount Sankey
John Sankey, 1st Viscount Sankey (26 October 1866 – 6 February 1948) was a British lawyer, judge, Labour politician and Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain, famous for many of his judgments in the House of Lords. He gave his name to the Sankey Declaration of the Rights of Man (1940). Background and education He was the son of Thomas Sankey, a grocer of Moreton-in-Marsh, Gloucestershire, by his second wife Catalina (née Dewsbury). Sankey's father died when he was 8 years old, when the family moved to Castle Road (now City Road) in Roath, Cardiff. Sankey was educated at a local Anglican school, and with the financial support of an Anglican clergyman he attended Lancing College, a public school in Sussex. He studied at Jesus College, Oxford, graduating with a second-class BA in Modern History in 1889, and a third-class Bachelor of Civil Law degree in 1891. He was called to the Bar at Middle Temple in 1892. Political and legal career Sankey began his practice as a ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
