1 / 13

Andrews vs. Law Society

Andrews vs. Law Society. Timothy Lau Jaeten Gosal Dillon Sangha. Background Info. Involves Sec. 1, 15, and 42 of Charter To be a lawyer in Canada, one must have Canadian citizenship Mark Andrews, a British subject, didn’t have one. Result. Role of the Charter.

treva
Télécharger la présentation

Andrews vs. Law Society

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. Andrews vs. Law Society Timothy Lau JaetenGosal Dillon Sangha

  2. Background Info. • Involves Sec. 1, 15, and 42 of Charter • To be a lawyer in Canada, one must have Canadian citizenship • Mark Andrews, a British subject, didn’t have one

  3. Result

  4. Role of the Charter The charter was the only real concrete factum that was used in order to prove Andrews’ case. Equality Rights 15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

  5. Appellant Factum Review • Andrews is a permanent resident in Canada and met all requirement to pass the provincial bar (except being a Canadian citizen) • Andrews said that being denied admission is a violation of s. 15 of the charter • Andrews brought a motion to strike down the citizenship requirement for Bar Admisson

  6. Explanation of grounds for appeal/desired order • Andrews lost the case as the judge stated that being a lawyer required a strong tie to the community, which Andrews didn’t show evidence of displaying. • The Supreme Court argued that citizenship was an essential quality needed to practice law in Canada. Andrews appealed to the BC Court of Appeal.

  7. Ontario Confederation of University Faculty Association • Represents over 12,000 faculty members • Strongly support equality before the law

  8. Women’s Legal Education Action Fund • Take no stance on the matter

  9. Federation of Law Societies of Canada • The law society views it as important that lawyers should be citizens • Important for their members to be connected and committed to government of Canada

  10. Attorney General of Ontario • Interpret section 15 to protect “traditionally disadvantaged persons”

  11. Attorney General of Nova Scotia • The meaning of section 15 must be certain • Thus, does not pick a side

  12. Attorney General of Alberta • Feels that Andrews’ appeal should be allowed • The right to engage in an occupation is an important fundamental right

  13. Bigger Picture • “the content of the law, its purpose, and its impact upon those to whom it applies, and also to those whom it excludes from application”

More Related