1 / 8

CLU3M Unit 2 Rights and Freedoms

CLU3M Unit 2 Rights and Freedoms. R v. Big M drug Mart 1985. R v. Big M Drug Mart. Sunday, May 30, 1982- Calgary. Big M Drug Mart was pen for business and allowed several transactions

galya
Télécharger la présentation

CLU3M Unit 2 Rights and Freedoms

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. CLU3M Unit 2 Rights and Freedoms R v. Big M drug Mart 1985

  2. R v. Big M Drug Mart • Sunday, May 30, 1982- Calgary. Big M Drug Mart was pen for business and allowed several transactions • The Lord’s Day Act (1906)- s. 4- “it is not lawful for any person on the Lord’s Day (Sunday)…to sell offer for sale or purchase any goods, moveable possessions or other personal property” • Trial judge in 1983 dismissed the case on the grounds that the law was unconstitutional.

  3. R v. Big M Drug Mart • Infringement of the Freedom of religion- if any law infringes a right or freedom it cannot exist. • The Crown appealed to the Alberta Court of Appeal- also dismissed • The Alberta Attorney general then appealed to the SCC • March 1985- The SCC had to decide if the Lord’s Day Act infringed Freedom of religion • The SCC also had to determine if the law could be saved as a reasonable limit

  4. R v. Big M Drug Mart • Final decision April 1985 • 6-0 decision- the Lord’s Day Act infringed Freedom of religion and could not be saved as a reasonable limit by sect. 1 • “If I am a Jew or Sabbatarian or a Muslim, the practice of my religion at least implies my right to work on a Sunday if I wish” • One religion cannot be protected over others

  5. R. v. Oakes • 1982 David Oakes- unlawful possession of a narcotic for the purpose of trafficking (s. 8) • Crown had to prove that Oakes had the drugs on him • It was up to Oakes to prove that he did not have them for trafficking • Oakes said this violated his presumption of innocence

  6. R. v. Oakes • Canadian legal tradition that the Crown proves guilt • Possible infringement of 11 (d) • First trial and the appeal was won in Oakes’s favour • 1986 SCC accepted Oakes’s argument ( He won!)

  7. R. v. Oakes • Section 8 of the Narcotic Control Act could not be saved by sect 1. • The Oakes Test was born: • Does the law enforce an important government objective? • Proportionality: is there a connection between limiting a person’s rights and the objective of the law? • Does the law interfere with rights as little as possible? • Are the effects of the limit proportional to the objective? The SCC ruled that there can never be an assumption of guilt based on irrational connections. Every time we have a rights violation, the SCC must determine if the violation is reasonable using the Oakes Test

  8. Framework for Charter Reasoning • 1. Does the Charter apply (section 32)? • For there to be an violation of infringements of rights we must be dealing with federal or provincial law • 2. Has there been an infringement or violation? If so, what sections of the Charter have been infringed? • 3. Proportionality test: Is the infringement reasonable? • Does the law enforce an important government decision? • Is the reason of importance to Canadian society? • The measure carried out that violates the right must be logically connected to the purpose • Is the right limited as little as possible • This is how we justify that a violation of a right is reasonably limited and justified in our society

More Related