Framework for Aboriginal Rights
|
|
- Christal Chambers
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Framework for Aboriginal Rights This test will apply in the context of Aboriginal rights, Aboriginal title and claims to Self-government. Note: there is a modified test if Metis rights are involved AND some additions for justifying in Ab title. Lax Kw alaams is the test for characterizing the right (and the blanks are filled in by Van der Peet). Sparrow is the test for infringement and justification of infringement. STEP ONE: What is the nature of the right? LAX LWA AALAMS 1. Characterize the right [be precise]. ***apply VDP???? Treaty Rights Activity/Cultural Rights [must distinguish which one it is] i. Food, social, ceremonial (internal limit) ii. Moderate livelihood (commercial right more than mere subsistence, but not accumulation of wealth) iii. Commercial rights (no limit- full commercial rights) Self-Government Title 2. See if the evidence establishes: The existence of pre-contact practice/tradition/custom and That this practice was integral to the distinctive pre-contact society i. Distinctive, but does not need to be distinct or exclusive to them (Sappier) 3. Consider continuity. Does the claimed modern right have a reasonable degree of continuity with the integral pre-contact practice? In other words, is the claimed modern right demonstrably connected to, and reasonably regarded as a continuation of, the pre-contract practice? Should take a generous though realistic approach (don t need to be exactly the same, but the essential elements of pre-contact practice should be present). Allow for logical evolution of methods. 4. If Aboriginal right to trade commercially is found, what objectives may justify infringement of Aboriginal commercial rights? This is a questionable point better dealt with by looking to step 3 of the Sparrow test Have the rights been infringed upon and if so, is the infringement justified? STEP TWO: did the right exist at 1982 (or was it extinguished pre-1982)? Sparrow: Crown s intention must be clear and plain if they are to extinguish an aboriginal right Crown has burden to prove never been done before (high burden)
2 STEP THREE: have the rights been infringed upon? If so, is the infringement justified? FSC (Sparrow); Commercial (Gladstone) The government owes a fiduciary duty to FN people, so any regulation that infringes or denies Aboriginal rights must be justified. Sparrow: 1. Is there a prima facie infringement of s 35(1)? To determine, look at: Is the limitation unreasonable? Does the regulation impose undue hardship? Does the regulation deny the holders of the right to use their preferred means of exercising the right? 2. Is there justification for the infringement? To determine, look at: **If Aboriginal title question, look at Note regarding title (Special title considerations Tsilhqot in: rational connection; minimal impairment; proportionality. Delgamuukw: look at duty to consult when justifying infringement.) General questions: Are the regulations in line with allocation of priority? (1: conservation; 2: Ab fishing rights for FSC purposes; 3: commercial/sports fishing) Has there been as little infringement as possible? If there was expropriation, was there compensation? Was the Aboriginal group consulted? Is there a valid legislative objective? Was the objective compelling and substantial? Be suspicious of the objective (look for shifts in objective); look at underlying objective Examples of compelling and substantial objectives : conservation and resource management; prevention of exercises of Ab rights that would harm people Public interest is too broad Has the honour of the Crown been upheld? Fiduciary duty/special trust? In line with allocation of priority? (Sparrow) 1. Conservation 2. Aboriginal Fishing Rights (FSC) 3. Commercial/Sports Fishing As little infringement as possible? If expropriation, compensation? Duty to consult? NOTE ON SELF-GOVERNMENT As we saw in Pamajewon, claims to self-government are considered the same as claims to other Aboriginal rights so are measured by same tests (Sparrow; Lax Kw alaams) NOTE ON ABORIGINAL TITLE
3 Tsilhqot in Gov t must act in a way that respects the fact that Aboriginal title is a group interest inherent in present and future generations so incursions on Ab title cannot be justified if they would substantially deprive future generations of benefit to the land To justify overriding Aboriginal title-holders wishes on the basis of broader public good, gov t must show: (1) that it discharged its procedural duty to consult and accommodate, (2) that its actions were backed by a compelling and substantial objective; and (3) that the governmental action is consistent with the Crown's fiduciary obligation to the group To infringe, there must be: **** A rational connection to the government s goal Minimal impairment (no impairment beyond what is necessary to achieve the goal) Proportionality of impact (adverse impacts on Aboriginal should not outweigh the expected benefits) Delgamuukw When considering if infringement is justified, see if the duty to consult has been met**** Still need to look at on a case-by-case basis and consider the other parts of the test, but these things can justify infringement of Aboriginal title o Development of agriculture, forestry, mining, hyrdro-electic power o General economic development of Interior of BC o Protection of environment or endangered species (and the building of infrastructure to support those aims) NOTE ON METIS RIGHTS **** Majority in Powley recognized that a pre-contact test may not be feasible for Metis customs/practices/traditions Test for Metis rights under s 35(1) is a modified version of Van der Peet 1. Right must be characterized 2. There must be identification of the historic and contemporary community 3. Verification of the claimant s membership in the community (by: self-identification; ancestral connection; community acceptance) 4. Identification of the relevant time frame [focus should be on time after Metis community arose, but before it came under effective control of the sovereign] 5. Then proceed to the extinguishment, infringement and justification steps from Sparrow.
4 Framework for Duty to Consult Generally speaking, the gov t is obligated under s 35 to consult and accommodate FN peoples about potential. Haida test (filled in by Rio Tinto). Even if Aboriginal title is proven and declared, the government can still develop land without consent (if duty is fulfilled). Usually only the Crown has the duty to consult. But the Crown can delegate some parts of its duty to 3 rd parties. Duty to consult is a different type of question than Aboriginal rights. In this, you are wanting judicial review to have a government decision quashed. Haida Nation v BC test: 2. Is there a duty to consult? a. Threshold (or trigger): the Crown has knowledge, real or constructive, of the potential existence of the Ab right or title and contemplates conduct that might adversely affect it i. Rio Tinto: breaks it down to 3 elements: 1. The Crown has real or constructive knowledge of potential existence of Ab right 2. The Crown contemplates conduct 3. With potentially adverse impact a. Rio Tinto: Must be new potential adverse effects [ex/ in Rio, they were making changes to pre-existing electricity purchase policies, so a duty was not found b/c there were no new potential adverse 3. What is the content of the duty? And has that duty been met? (Haida) a. It is a spectrum need to look at strength of the case and the seriousness of the potentially adverse impact b. Procedural aspects: i. This duty can be fulfilled through existing regulations in appropriate circumstances ii. At least need to give notice, but sometimes notice is not enough (hold meetings, share info, respond to concerns, etc) iii. Examples/ providing affected communities with notice; holding meetings; sharing info; responding to community concerns c. Substantive aspects: i. The idea of accommodation (where appropriate) ii. Consent is generally not required (but can be required in relation to strong rights claims, or proven rights or title) but generally just need to accommodate
5 iii. Examples/ adjustment to intended projects (ex/ moving where road goes); a change in policy (ex/ how many licenses to take resources are issued); compensation; deciding to cease project Framework for Charter Questions 1. Does the Charter apply? 2. Does the impugned law have the effect of limiting/infringing upon a guaranteed right or freedom? 3. If so, is that limit a reasonable one that is prescribed by law and can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society? (Oakes test) 4. If not, what is the appropriate remedy? 1. Does the Charter apply? Does the person have the right? Section 2: everyone (including corporations) [freedom of conscience and religion; freedom of expression] Section 7: every person including non-citizens (excluding corporations) [life, liberty and security] Section 15: every person (excluding corporations) [equality] Is the other party subject to the Charter? Section 32(1)(a) and (b): the government Godbout v Longeuil: includes municipalities Bodies that are governmental in nature [people with governmental control or governmental characteristics; delegated decision-makers] Douglas College; Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority: it is considered governmentally controlled if a statute indicates an actor is an agent of the government or statute gives them significant oversight/control Hospitals and universities (complex) Eldridge: hospital, delivery of medically necessary services, government McKinney: university, mandatory retirement, not government Staffman: hospital, mandatory retirement, not government Dolphin Delivery: does not apply to private disputes Territorial limits? General rule: does not apply outside of Canada Cook: can apply extra-territorially where the actor is within s 32 (gov t) and the application of the Charter does not interfere with jurisdiction of the foreign state
6 Hope: can apply where actor is within s 32 (gov t) and matter is within authority of Canadian gov t Usually irrelevant b/c Canada doesn t using have authority in foreign jurisdiction, but there are exceptions: Consent of foreign state to apply Charter There has been a violation of international obligation (human rights, etc) 2. Does the impugned law have the effect of limiting/infringing upon a guaranteed right or freedom? 2(a) freedom of conscience and religion 2(b) freedom of expression 15 equality 7 life, liberty, and security of the person Freedom of Religion (2a) Very big right relatively easy to show an infringement, so usually focuses on s 1 analysis Amselem test: An infringement of s 2(a) of the Charter will be made out where: 1) the claimant sincerely believes in a belief or practice that has a nexus with religion; and 2) the impugned measure interferes with the claimant s ability to act in accordance with his or her religious beliefs in a manner that is more than trivial or insubstantial. Person must prove infringement on balance of probabilities (SL v Commission) Big M: Lord s Day Act (purpose: religious) was struck down for forcing religion upon others Edwards: Ontario Business Holidays Act (purpose: secular); saved under Oakes (pressing & substantial day of rest for employees) Alberta v Hutterian Brethren: Photo license upheld; breached, but took deferential approach to s 1 and justified Amselem: religious structure may be built if claimant sincerely believes in it and it has nexus with religion TWU v BCCT: teaching program; Community Standards Act; violation of s 2(a) SL v Commission: Ethics and Religious Culture course refusal to exempt; discussed in neutral way, so failed step 2 Loyola: Catholic school wanted exemption from ERC; minister refused; court found violation Mouvement laique Quebecois: Catholic prayer at meeting violates freedom to religion (atheism) IF IT BREACHES, MOVE TO STEP 3 JUSTIFICATION UNDER S 1 Freedom of expression (2b) Test (Irwin)
7 1. Does the conduct fall within protection of freedom of expression (2b)? a. Anything (including physical acts) that convey ideas, opinions and feelings i. Acts of violence are never protected ii. Hate speech is limited [usually justified to override freedom in scenarios of hate speech] 2. Is the purpose or effect of government action to restrict freedom of expression? a. Restrictions can t be aimed at content but the restrictions can be aimed at the physical effects of the activity Butler: selling porn does fall under 2(b) but infringed save under s 1 b/c harm to women Irwin Toy: prohibition on advertising to those under 13 violates 2(b), but is justified. IF IT BREACHES, MOVE TO STEP 3 JUSTIFICATION UNDER S 1 Equality (15) S 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. [there is the concept that allows analogous grounds to be added] [includes non-citizens] (2) allows affirmative action Kapp test for 15(1) 1. Does the law create a distinction based on 1+ enumerated or analogous grounds? Enumerated grounds: race; national/ethnic origin; colour; religion; sex; age; mental/physical disability Established analogous grounds: Citizenship (Andrews) Sexual orientation (Egan) Marital statute (Miron v Trudel) Aboriginal living on or off reserve and band member status (Corbiere) If the ground is not one of the above, you can try to make an argument that it is an analogous ground. General analogous grounds: Personal, immutable characteristics that cannot be changed at a reasonable cost to identity (Andrews; Corbiere) People with relative lack of political power; vulnerable to having interests overlook; discrete and insular minorities (Andrews) Failed analogous grounds: Poverty; employment status; occupation If it is an enumerated/analogous ground OR you can propose an analogous ground, then proceed to step 2. If you cannot propose anything, s 15 argument fails. 1(B). If it does create a distinction, consider whether the government may be able to make a section 15(2) argument (affirmative action)? 2. Does the distinction create a disadvantage by perpetuating prejudice/stereotyping?
8 Quebec v A: prejudice and stereotyping may help answer the question, but the claimant is not required to demonstrate that a discriminatory attitude exists, just need to show there is a discriminatory impact. Withler: perpetuating prejudice usually occurs when the law treats a historically disadvantaged group in a way that exacerbates the situation. Law: substantive inequality can be shown if the disadvantage imposed is based on a stereotype that does not correspond to the actual circumstances/characteristics of the claimant/claimant group [therefore, can apply even if no historical disadvantage] Look at: Factors from Law: o Is there pre-existing disadvantage, stereotyping, prejudice, or vulnerability? o Is there correspondence between ground(s) and the actual need, capacity, or circumstances of the claimant or others? o Does the impugned law have an ameliorative purpose or effects? o What is the nature and scope of the interested affected by the impugned law? Parties can bring a comparator analysis if it will help them. But SCC in 201 (Withler) de-emphasized the role of comparator groups. Said similar treatment is not the most relevant thing. o Comparator group: one that mirrors the characteristic of the claimant relevant to the benefit sought (Withler) o Parties can bring in a comparator analysis if it will help them Does the challenged law violate the norm of substantive equality in s 15(1) of the Charter? (Andrews substantive equality, not formal equality) **focus on the legislative goal, rather than the actual effect (Kapp) IF IT BREACHES, MOVE TO STEP 3 JUSTIFICATION UNDER S 1 Kapp test for 15(2): Step 1: A program does not violate s 15 if the government can demonstrate that: 1. The program has an ameliorative (affirmative action) or remedial purpose; and 2. The program targets a disadvantaged group identified by the enumerated or analogous grounds If the program doesn t satisfy the above requirements, need to move to step 2.
9 Step 2: Does the distinction create a disadvantage by perpetuating prejudice or stereotyping? Look at: Factors from Law: o Is there pre-existing disadvantage, stereotyping, prejudice, or vulnerability? o Is there correspondence between ground(s) and the actual need, capacity, or circumstances of the claimant or others? o Does the impugned law have an ameliorative purpose or effects? o What is the nature and scope of the interested affected by the impugned law? Parties can bring a comparator analysis if it will help them. But SCC in 201 (Withler) de-emphasized the role of comparator groups. Said similar treatment is not the most relevant thing. o Comparator group: one that mirrors the characteristic of the claimant relevant to the benefit sought (Withler) o Parties can bring in a comparator analysis if it will help them Does the challenged law violate the norm of substantive equality in s 15(1) of the Charter? (Andrews substantive equality, not formal equality) Andrews: non-citizens denied access to BC Law Society; discrimination, not justified Law: Doesn t get survivor s pension until she turns 65 b/c she is only 30 when spouse dies; age distinctions in these scenarios are not discriminatory Kapp: Non-Ab fishers didn t get exclusive early fishing license like Ab did; program does not violate s 15 b/c it was addressing historical disadvantage of Ab (affirmative action) Withler: Death benefit pension plan; amount decreases 10% every year for those over 60/65; age discrimination is okay when we look at entire benefit plan IF IT BREACHES, MOVE TO STEP 3 JUSTIFICATION UNDER S 1 Life, liberty, security of the person (7) S 7: Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. 1. Has life, liberty, or security of person been deprived? a. Scope of each ground? i. Life: PHS: not allowing Insite threatened client s lives Carter: assisted suicide prohibition violates Chaoulli: excessive wait times for hip surgery caused unnecessary pain/stress violated life
10 ii. Liberty: Reference re BC MVA: minimally freedom from restraint Morgentaler: includes physical and psychological integrity Godbout: broad right to personal autonomy where individuals can make free choices Malmo-Levine iii. Security: Morgentaler: includes physical and psychological integrity Rodriguez: autonomy; bodily integrity Chaoulli: excessive wait times for hip surgery caused unnecessary pain/stress violated security Gosselin: there is no positive obligation on the state to ensure that each person enjoys life, liberty, or security of person. a. Example/ allowing homeless to sleep in park; environmental action; etc Bedford: bodily integrity; protecting vulnerable prostitutes from being forced underground Carter: assisted suicide prohibition violates 2. Has the deprivation been in accordance with fundamental justice? a. If the deprivation was done in accordance with FJ, it is ok b. **in general, violations of FJ are not justified under s 1 c. What is the purpose of the legislation in question? i. Bedford: don t use broad objectives d. Procedural: i. e. Is the deprivation in accordance with the basic tenets of the legal system? (substantive) i. Legal principle? ii. General societal consensus? iii. Sufficiently precise? f. Under these recognized principles of fundamental justice, deprivations cannot be: [not a closed list] i. Arbitrary (there is not a direct connection between the purpose of the law and effect on the individuals) ii. Grossly disproportionate (the law s effect on life, liberty, or security are so grossly disproportionate to the purpose that it cannot be supported) iii. Overbroad (law is so broad in scope that it would include conduct that has no relation to the purpose of the legislation) [doesn t mean lots of people could be overbroad if it affects 1 person for no purpose] IF IT BREACHES, MOVE TO STEP 3 JUSTIFICATION UNDER S 1 3. Is the infringement justified? Infringement can be justified under s 1. Charter guarantees rights and freedoms only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
11 Oakes test (to determine if it is justified under s 1) 1. The objectives of the impugned measures must be pressing and substantial enough to warrant overriding a right/freedom. You can t have a shifting purpose (Big M). But Butler does allow a shift emphasis. The objective cannot be directly contradictory to a Charter right (Big M). Financial objectives are not usually pressing and substantial as a single concern 2. The means chosen to accomplish the objective must be proportional, which requires: a) rational connection between the measures adopted and the objectives; b) minimal impairment that the measures impair the right or freedom in question as little as possible; ***this is where deferential treatment may be given if applicable c) that the deleterious effects on the individuals or groups whose rights are limited must be proportional to the objective and to the salutary effects of the measures Deferential treatment for minimal impairment step Irwin: greater defence to the legislative choice is appropriate when: The government has sought to balance competing rights To protect a socially vulnerable group To balance the interests of various social groups competing for scarce resources To address conflicting social science evidence about the cause of a social problem Forms of Deference: 1. Judicial deference to relevant findings of fact by legislature In other words, lowering the standard of proof that legislature must meet to justify section 2 rights 2. Judicial deference to legislature s accommodation of competing values or interests 3. Lowering of standard of justification under section 1 If the competing interest is significant, it may support restriction of a less valuable form of expression 2. What remedies are available for an unjustified breach of a Charter right? a. S 52(1): law inconsistent with Constitution is to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect b. S 24(1): very broad ability of court to give any remedy c. Possible remedies: i. Nullification (declare it invalid) ii. Severance (sever just the inconsistent provisions) iii. Suspended declaration of invalidity iv. Reading in v. Reading down
12 vi. Exemption d. Schacter Framework to Determine Remedy 1. Define the extent of the inconsistency 2. Decide whether severance or reading in is appropriate Look at purposes of the legislation, purposes of the Charter Criteria: remedial precision; interference with legislative objective (includes budgetary concerns); change in significance of the remaining portion; the significance of the remaining portion 3. Consider whether to suspend the declaration of invalidity e. Vriend: reading in is not a huge deal, because the legislature can just re-legislate f. Schacter: severance is no more serious than reading in
Aboriginal Rights The Test
Aboriginal Rights The Test 1. Characterize the right based on the pleadings Types of Aboriginal Rights: A. FSC/Activity/Cultural Rights: Sparrow Drift Net Van der Peet Selling 10 Salmon Sappier/Gray Harvesting
More informationIN BRIEF SECTION 1 OF THE CHARTER AND THE OAKES TEST
THE CHARTER AND THE OAKES TEST Learning Objectives To establish the importance of s. 1 in both ensuring and limiting our rights. To introduce students to the Oakes test and its important role in Canadian
More informationTHE GENESIS OF ABORIGINAL RIGHTS AND THE DUTY TO CONSULT
THE GENESIS OF ABORIGINAL RIGHTS AND THE DUTY TO CONSULT UBC Institute for Resources, Environment & Sustainability Date: September 16 th, 2014 Presented by: Rosanne M. Kyle 604.687.0549, ext. 101 rkyle@jfklaw.ca
More informationCHAPTER 4 NEW ZEALAND BILL OF RIGHTS ACT 1990 AND HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1993 INTRODUCTION
110 CHAPTER 4 NEW ZEALAND BILL OF RIGHTS ACT 1990 AND HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1993 Background INTRODUCTION The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (Bill of Rights Act) affirms a range of civil and political rights.
More informationTHE CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS
E S S E N T I A L S OF C A N A D I A N L A W THE CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS F O U R T H E D I T I O N HON. ROBERT J. SHARPE Court of Appeal for Ontario KENT ROACH Faculty of Law, University of Toronto
More informationTrans Mountain, Site C, and BC LNG: Is it Time for a Sea Change? Matthew Keen and Emily Chan Presented May 26, 2016 at BEST 2016
Trans Mountain, Site C, and BC LNG: Is it Time for a Sea Change? Matthew Keen and Emily Chan Presented May 26, 2016 at BEST 2016 Outline Duty to consult Roles of project proponent and regulator Consultation
More informationCONSTITUTIONAL LAW: CHARTER COURSE SYLLABUS
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: CHARTER COURSE SYLLABUS COURSE INFORMATION Time: Wednesdays, 2:00pm-3:00pm Fridays, 1:30pm-2:30pm Location: Room 122 INSTRUCTOR INFORMATION: Dr. Bethany Hastie Allard Hall, Room 338
More informationCHURCH LAW BULLETIN NO. 24
CHURCH LAW BULLETIN NO. 24 Carters Professional Corporation / Société professionnelle Carters Barristers, Solicitors & Trade-mark Agents / Avocats et agents de marques de commerce JANUARY 23, 2009 Editor:
More informationAccommodation Without Compromise: Comment on Alberta v. Hutterian Brethren of Wilson Colony
The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference Volume 51 (2010) Article 5 Accommodation Without Compromise: Comment on Alberta v. Hutterian Brethren of Wilson Colony Richard
More informationSyllabus. Canadian Constitutional Law
Syllabus Canadian Constitutional Law (Revised February 2015) Candidates are advised that the syllabus may be updated from time-to-time without prior notice. Candidates are responsible for obtaining the
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MANITOBA
Citation: Stadler v Director, St Boniface/ Date: 20181010 St Vital, 2018 MBCA 103 Docket: AI18-30-09081 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MANITOBA B ETWEEN : K. A. Burwash for the Applicant A. J. Ladyka MARTIN
More informationTHE GENESIS OF THE DUTY TO CONSULT AND THE SUPERME COURT
THE GENESIS OF THE DUTY TO CONSULT AND THE SUPERME COURT The judicial genesis of the legal duty of consultation began with a series of Aboriginal right and title decisions providing the foundational principles
More informationFACTUM OF THE APPELLANT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO) BETWEEN Dylan Jacob Appellant and Attorney General of Canada Respondent FACTUM OF THE APPELLANT TEAM #8 TABLE
More informationA View From the Bench Administrative Law
A View From the Bench Administrative Law Justice David Farrar Nova Scotia Court of Appeal With the Assistance of James Charlton, Law Clerk Nova Scotia Court of Appeal Court of Appeal for Ontario: Mavi
More informationThe Non-Discrimination Standards for Government and the Public Sector. Guidelines on how to apply the standards and who is covered
The Non-Discrimination Standards for Government and the Public Sector Guidelines on how to apply the standards and who is covered March 2002 Table Of Contents INTRODUCTION... 4 WHAT IS THE AIM OF THESE
More informationChapter 2. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Chapter 2 The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Background The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was entrenched (safeguarded) in the Canadian Constitution on April 17, 1982. This means that
More informationMartha Butler. Publication No E 11 September Legal and Social Affairs Division Parliamentary Information and Research Service
Section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms: The Development of the Supreme Court of Canada s Approach to Equality Rights Under the Charter Publication No. 2013-83-E 11 September 2013 Martha
More informationConsultation with First Nations and Accommodation Obligations
Consultation with First Nations and Accommodation Obligations John J.L. Hunter, Q.C. prepared for a conference on the Impact of the Haida and Taku River Decisions presented by the Pacific Business and
More informationBedford v. Canada, 2010 ONSC 4264 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - HIMEL J.:
Bedford v. Canada, 2010 ONSC 4264 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - HIMEL J.: [ ] II. THE IMPUGNED PROVISIONS [6] The applicants do not challenge all of the prostitution-related provisions in the Criminal Code. They
More informationHUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1993 Discrimination
HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1993 Discrimination Sylvia Bell Principal Legal & Policy Analyst Human Rights Commission Pension Forum: New Zealand Superannuation and Overseas Pensions: Issues and Principles for Reform
More informationCases That Have Changed Society
Cases That Have Changed Society Many cases are started by individuals or groups, to respond to a particular event or to change a situation. The outcomes of these cases will often lead to changes in certain
More informationSyllabus. Canadian Constitutional Law
Syllabus Canadian Constitutional Law (Revised February 2015) Candidates are advised that the syllabus may be updated from time-to-time without prior notice. Candidates are responsible for obtaining the
More informationFREEDOM OF EXPRESSION AND ADVERTISING TO CHILDREN: IRWIN TOY LIMITED v. QUEBEC (AG)
Landmark Case FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION AND ADVERTISING TO CHILDREN: IRWIN TOY LIMITED v. QUEBEC (AG) Prepared for the Ontario Justice Education Network by a Law Student from Pro Bono Students Canada Irwin
More informationNative Title A Canadian Perspective. R. Scott Hanna, BSc, MRM, CEnvP (IA Specialist) 19 February 2015
Native Title A Canadian Perspective R. Scott Hanna, BSc, MRM, CEnvP (IA Specialist) 19 February 2015 09/2013 Topics of Presentation Aboriginal Peoples and First Nations of Canada Historic and Modern Treaties
More informationAMENDED RESPONSE TO CIVIL CLAIM
Amended pursuant to Supreme Court Civil Rule 6-l(l)(a) Original filed November 10, 2016 '1 ~,,.,., i,. I No. S168364 Vancouver Registry IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Between: Mary Louise Maclaren,
More informationLegal Aspects of Land Use and Occupancy
Legal Aspects of Land Use and Occupancy DR. M.A. (PEGGY) SMITH, R.P.F. SFMN Traditional Land Use Mapping Workshop January 15-16, 2009, Saskatoon It s all about the land and who gets to decide how it s
More information% AND: FACTUM OF THE INTERVENOR COUNCIL OF FOREST INDUSTRIES. No. CA Vancouver Registry COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN:
No. CA024761 Vancouver Registry COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN: AND: CHIEF COUNCILLOR MATHEW HILL, also known as Tha-lathatk, on his own behalf and on behalf of all other members of the Kitkatla Band, and KITKATLA
More informationThe Scope of Consultation and the Role of Administrative Tribunals in Upholding the Honour of the Crown: the Rio Tinto Alcan Decision 1
The Scope of Consultation and the Role of Administrative Tribunals in Upholding the Honour of the Crown: the Rio Tinto Alcan Decision 1 By Peter R. Grant 2 Introduction In the 1950s, the government of
More informationTHE HIGH COURT OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL)
THE HIGH COURT OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL) BETWEEN: CLAUDETTE TINIO and LILY TINIO (BY HER LITIGATION GUARDIAN CLAUDETTE TINIO) AND Appellants ATTORNEY GENERAL
More informationATTORNEY-GENERAL. Report of the. under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 on the End of Life Choice Bill
J.4 Report of the ATTORNEY-GENERAL under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 on the End of Life Choice Bill Presented to the House of Representatives pursuant to Section 7 of the New Zealand Bill of
More informationParliamentary Research Branch THE RODRIGUEZ CASE: A REVIEW OF THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA DECISION ON ASSISTED SUICIDE
Background Paper BP-349E THE RODRIGUEZ CASE: A REVIEW OF THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA DECISION ON ASSISTED SUICIDE Margaret Smith Law and Government Division October 1993 Library of Parliament Bibliothèque
More informationTENANTS HUMAN RIGHTS GUIDE RENTAL HOUSING AND THE ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS CODE
TENANTS HUMAN RIGHTS GUIDE RENTAL HOUSING AND THE ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS CODE What is the Ontario Human Rights Code? Ontario s Human Rights Code (the Code) is one of the most important laws in Ontario. The
More informationFRASER RESEARCHBULLETIN
FRASER RESEARCHBULLETIN FROM THE CENTRE FOR ABORIGINAL POLICY STUDIES July 2014 A Real Game Changer: An Analysis of the Supreme Court of Canada Tsilhqot in Nation v. British Columbia Decision by Ravina
More informationThe Supreme Court of Canada s Decision in the Insite Case: CPHA s Role and Directions for the Future. Andrea Gonsalves Stockwoods LLP
The Supreme Court of Canada s Decision in the Insite Case: CPHA s Role and Directions for the Future Andrea Gonsalves Stockwoods LLP 1 What the Insite case was about ISSUE: Does the federal prohibition
More informationEducation as a Human Right
Education as a Human Right Lindsay A. Waddell 3 rd Floor 195 Alexander Street Vancouver, BC V6A 1N8 T: 604-689-4457 1-888-689-4457 lindsaywaddell@unionlawyers.com www.unionlawyers.com 1 Overview Where
More informationA SECOND CHANCE FOR THE HARM PRINCIPLE IN SECTION 7? GROSS DISPROPORTIONALITY POST-BEDFORD
APPEAL VOLUME 20 n 71 ARTICLE A SECOND CHANCE FOR THE HARM PRINCIPLE IN SECTION 7? GROSS DISPROPORTIONALITY POST-BEDFORD Alexander Sculthorpe* CITED: (2015) 20 Appeal 71 INTRODUCTION For what purposes
More informationAlberta v. Hutterian Brethren of Wilson Colony: A walk through and brief case analysis By Don Hutchinson
of Wilson Colony: A walk through and brief case analysis By Don Hutchinson Some have regarded this decision as a hard loss. It s true that we would have preferred a different result from the application
More informationEnergy Projects & First Nations in Canada:
Energy Projects & First Nations in Canada: Rights, duties, engagement and accommodation For Center for Energy Economics, Bureau of Economic Geology University of Texas Bob Skinner, President KIMACAL Energy
More informationAlberta s Health Information Act and the Charter: A Discussion Paper
Alberta s Health Information Act and the Charter: A Discussion Paper Prepared for: Canadian Mental Health Association (Alberta Division) Alberta Medical Association B.C. Freedom of Information and Privacy
More informationReligious Freedom and the State in Canada and the U.S.: A Comparative Analysis of Saguenay, Town of Greece, Loyola, and Hobby Lobby
Religious Freedom and the State in Canada and the U.S.: A Comparative Analysis of Saguenay, Town of Greece, Loyola, and Hobby Lobby Prepared For: Legal Education Society of Alberta Constitutional Law Symposium
More informationProvincial Jurisdiction After Delgamuukw
2.1 ABORIGINAL TITLE UPDATE Provincial Jurisdiction After Delgamuukw These materials were prepared by Albert C. Peeling of Azevedo & Peeling, Vancouver, B.C. for Continuing Legal Education, March, 1998.
More informationCASES THAT HAVE CHANGED SOCIETY
YOUTH ENGAGEMENT ON SOCIAL JUSTICE ISSUES ACTIVE CITIZENS CASES THAT HAVE Many cases are started by individuals or groups, to respond to a particular event or to change a situation. The outcomes of these
More informationCOURT OF APPEAL FOR YUKON
COURT OF APPEAL FOR YUKON Citation: Between: And Ross River Dena Council v. Government of Yukon, 2012 YKCA 14 Ross River Dena Council Government of Yukon Date: 20121227 Docket: 11-YU689 Appellant (Plaintiff)
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA) - and -
i' - I 1-1 1 YYV,/V 5 i rax!r IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA) No. 23801 lv.*&~%, BETWEEN: DONALD AND WILLIAM GLADSTONE - and - Appellants HER MAJESTY
More informationCITATION: Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters v. Ontario, 2015 ONSC 7969 COURT FILE NO.: 318/15 DATE:
CITATION: Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters v. Ontario, 2015 ONSC 7969 COURT FILE NO.: 318/15 DATE: 20151218 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO RE: ONTARIO FEDERATION OF ANGLERS AND HUNTERS, Applicant
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: And The Council of the Haida Nation v. British Columbia, 2018 BCSC 277 The Council of the Haida Nation and Peter Lantin, suing on his own behalf
More informationAboriginal Title and Rights: Crown s Duty to Consult and Seek Accommodation
Case Comment Bob Reid Aboriginal Title and Rights: Crown s Duty to Consult and Seek Accommodation After the Supreme Court of Canada s decision in Delgamuukw, (1997) 3 S.C.R 1010, stated there was an obligation
More information5. There shall be a sitting of Parliament and of each legislature at least once every twelve months. (82)
CANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law: Guarantee of Rights and Freedoms Rights and freedoms in Canada
More informationPart 1 of the Constitution Act, 1982 Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:
Part 1 of the Constitution Act, 1982 Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law: Guarantee of Rights and Freedoms 1. The Canadian Charter of Rights
More informationLandmark Case SEXUAL ORIENTATION AND THE CHARTER VRIEND v. ALBERTA
Landmark Case SEXUAL ORIENTATION AND THE CHARTER VRIEND v. ALBERTA Prepared for the Ontario Justice Education Network by Counsel for the Department of Justice Canada. Vriend v. Alberta (1998) Delwin Vriend
More informationA Turning Point In The Civilization
Kichesipirini Algonquin First Nation Kichi Sibi Anishnabe / Algonquin Nation Canada By Honouring Our Past We Determine Our Future algonquincitizen@hotmail.com A Turning Point In The Civilization Re: Ottawa
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL) NELL TOUSSAINT. and
S.C.C. File No. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL) BETWEEN: NELL TOUSSAINT Applicant Appellant and MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent Respondent
More informationSchedule B. Constitution Act, 1982 (79) Enacted as Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (U.K.) 1982, c. 11, which came into force on April 17, 1982
Guarantee of Rights and Freedoms Fundamental Freedoms Democratic Rights Mobility Rights Legal Rights Equality Rights Official Languages of Canada Minority Language Educational Rights Enforcement General
More informationCanadian charter of rights and freedoms
Canadian charter of rights and freedoms Schedule B Constitution Act, 1982 (79) Enacted as Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (U.K.) 1982, c. 11, which came into force on April 17, 1982 PART I Whereas Canada
More informationFEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL NELL TOUSSAINT. and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA. and THE CANADIAN CIVIL LIBERTIES ASSOCIATION
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL Court File No.: A-362-10 BETWEEN: NELL TOUSSAINT Appellant and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Respondent and THE CANADIAN CIVIL LIBERTIES ASSOCIATION MEMORANDUM OF FACT AND LAW OF THE
More informationBatty v City of Toronto: Municipalities at Forefront of Occupy Movement
Batty v City of Toronto: Municipalities at Forefront of Occupy Movement By Tiffany Tsun As part of the global Occupy Wall Street movement throughout October and November, many Canadian municipalities found
More informationTRANSFORMING WOMEN S FUTURE
TRANSFORMING WOMEN S FUTURE A 2004 GUIDE TO EQUALITY RIGHTS THEORY AND LAW Written by Melina Buckley Edited by Alison Brewin produced by West Coast Legal Education and Action Fund Contents 3 Introduction
More informationWomen and the Equality Guarantee of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms: A Recap and Critique
Women and the Equality Guarantee of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms: A Recap and Critique Margot Young Associate Professor Faculty of Law University of British Columbia Canada In 1982 Canada
More informationPatrimoine canadien. Canadian. Heritage. The. Canadian. Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Canadian Heritage Patrimoine canadien The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God
More informationWritten Submissions by Stswecem c Xgat tem First Nation. Submitted to the Expert Panel regarding the National Energy Board Modernization Review
Stswecem c Xgat tem Written Submissions by Stswecem c Xgat tem First Nation Submitted to the Expert Panel regarding the National Energy Board Modernization Review March 29, 2017 Introduction Stswecem c
More informationTHE CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS OF ABORIGINAL RIGHTS. Peter W. HOGG*
30-Lajoie.book Page 177 Mardi, 20. mai 2008 12:26 12 THE CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS OF ABORIGINAL RIGHTS Peter W. HOGG* I. ABORIGINAL RIGHTS BEFORE 1982... 179 II. CONSTITUTION ACT, 1982... 181 III. THE SPARROW
More informationDecember 2 nd, Sent Via
December 2 nd, 2014 Sent Via Email Premier@gov.ab.ca The Honourable Jim Prentice Premier of Alberta and Minister of Aboriginal Relations 307 Legislature Building 10800-97 Avenue Edmonton, AB T5K 2B6 Dear
More informationProject & Environmental Review Aboriginal Consultation Information for Applicants. July 2015
Project & Environmental Review Aboriginal Consultation Information for Applicants July 2015 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Introduction... 2 2. Overview... 2 3. Principles/Objectives... 2 4. Applicability... 3 5.
More informationfncaringsociety.com Phone: Fax:
fncaringsociety.com Phone: 613-230-5885 Fax: 613-230-3080 info@fncaringsociety.com Summary of the positions of the parties to the judicial review (Appeal) of Canadian Human Rights Chair Chotalia s decision
More informationThe Charter of Rights and Freedoms
The Charter of Rights and Freedoms Introduction - Sources of Rights and Freedoms In this section you'll learn about the importance of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and human rights legislation
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA. BRITISH COLUMBIA CIVIL LIBERTIES ASSOCIATION and THE JOHN HOWARD SOCIETY OF CANADA
, Amended pursuant to the Consent Order entered June 21, 2017 Original filed January 19,2015. SURREM. COURT OF BRITISH COL.UMBIA vancouvelt REGISTRY J N 1 2017 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
More informationThe Charter of Rights and Freedoms Part of our written constitution
The Charter of Rights and Freedoms Part of our written constitution The text for this document was taken from the Youth Guide to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - English Edition published
More informationJohn Humphrey Centre for Peace and Human Rights Youth Guide to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms French and English
Background Information PINK 3 John Humphrey Centre for Peace and Human Rights Youth Guide to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms French and English GRADES 1-6 John Humphrey Centre for Peace and
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: Yahey v. British Columbia, 2018 BCSC 278 Date: 20180226 Docket: S151727 Registry: Vancouver Marvin Yahey on his own behalf and on behalf of all
More informationEnvironmental Law Centre
Environmental Law Centre Murray and Anne Fraser Building University of Victoria P.O. Box 2400 STN CSC Victoria, BC, Canada V8W 3H7 www.elc.uvic.ca Duty to Consult with First Nations Researcher: Paul Brackstone
More informationKINDER MORGAN CANADA LIMITED: BRIEF ON LEGAL RISKS FOR TRANS MOUNTAIN
West Coast Environmental Law Association 200-2006 W.10 th Avenue Vancouver, BC Coast Salish Territories wcel.org 2017 KINDER MORGAN CANADA LIMITED: BRIEF ON LEGAL RISKS FOR TRANS MOUNTAIN May 29, 2017
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: And The Council of the Haida Nation v. British Columbia, 2017 BCSC 1665 The Council of the Haida Nation and Peter Lantin, suing on his own behalf
More informationParliamentary Research Branch HUMAN RIGHTS LEGISLATION AND THE CHARTER: A COMPARATIVE GUIDE. Nancy Holmes Law and Government Division
Mini-Review MR-102E HUMAN RIGHTS LEGISLATION AND THE CHARTER: A COMPARATIVE GUIDE Nancy Holmes Law and Government Division 13 October 1992 Revised 18 September 1997 Library of Parliament Bibliothèque du
More informationAP/PPAS A Public Law II: The Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Limits of Public Administration
AP/PPAS3136 3.0 A Public Law II: The Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Limits of Public Administration Course Director: Danny O Rourke Class Hours: Monday and Wednesday 4pm-7pm Class Location: 133
More informationCANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS [FEDERAL]
PDF Version [Printer friendly ideal for printing entire document] CANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS [FEDERAL] Published by Important: Quickscribe offers a convenient and economical updating service
More information1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA. (On Appeal from the Court of Appeal of Alberta) BETWEEN:
1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (On Appeal from the Court of Appeal of Alberta) BETWEEN: DELWIN VRIEND and GALA-GAY AND LESBIAN AWARENESS SOCIETY OF EDMONTON and GAY AND LESBIAN COMMUNITY CENTRE OF EDMONTON
More informationConstitutional Law Tests:
Constitutional Law Tests: Colonial Government Powers: - Common law power was given to Colonies by the Crown (Royal Proclamation) - Governors of colonies can make laws (Royal Proclamation) - Colonial government
More informationCriminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 (the Code ) Competition Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-34
1 2 3 4 The power to legislate with respect to criminal law (except the constitution of the courts) is reserved to the federal government: 91(27) of the Constitution Act, 1867 (U.K.), 30 & 31 Vict., c.
More informationWORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 1945/10
WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 1945/10 BEFORE: HEARING: J. P. Moore : Vice-Chair B. Davis : Member Representative of Employers A. Grande : Member Representative of Workers
More informationThere are nine judges on the Supreme Court. Three from both Quebec and Ontario, three from west and territories. Only appeals are heard.
Composition: There are nine judges on the Supreme Court. Three from both Quebec and Ontario, three from west and territories. Only appeals are heard. Out of more than one thousand appeals, only about one
More informationBILL C-6 An Act to amend the Citizenship Act and to make consequential amendments to another Act. Submission to Standing Committee
BILL C-6 An Act to amend the Citizenship Act and to make consequential amendments to another Act Submission to Standing Committee April 13, 2016 ARCH Disability Law Centre 425 Bloor Street East Suite 110
More informationBill C-10: Criminal Code Amendments (Mental Disorder) NATIONAL CRIMINAL JUSTICE SECTION CANADIAN BAR ASSOCIATION
Bill C-10: Criminal Code Amendments (Mental Disorder) NATIONAL CRIMINAL JUSTICE SECTION CANADIAN BAR ASSOCIATION November 2004 TABLE OF CONTENTS Bill C-10: Criminal Code Amendments (Mental Disorder) PREFACE...
More informationDRAFT GUIDELINES FOR MINISTRIES ON CONSULTATION WITH ABORIGINAL PEOPLES RELATED TO ABORIGINAL RIGHTS AND TREATY RIGHTS
For Discussion Purposes Only DRAFT GUIDELINES FOR MINISTRIES ON CONSULTATION WITH ABORIGINAL PEOPLES RELATED TO ABORIGINAL RIGHTS AND TREATY RIGHTS This information is for general guidance only and is
More informationFirst Nations Perspectives: Review of National Aquatic Animal Health Program
DRAFT ASSEMBLY OF FIRST NATIONS First Nations Perspectives: Review of National Aquatic Animal Health Program Submitted March 31, 2010 to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, Aquatic Animal Health Division
More informationINDEX. . applicant. .. role and responsibilities, . claimant. .. legal capacity, affected person, age, bargaining agent, 281
Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005, 129-130 Accommodation, 25-27, 138. bona fide occupational requirements and accommodation, 20-22.. cost of accommodation, 21.. health and safety
More informationCASL Constitutional Challenge An Overview
McCarthy Tétrault Advance Building Capabilities for Growth CASL Constitutional Challenge An Overview Charles Morgan Direct Line: 514-397-4230 E-Mail: cmorgan@mccarthy.ca October 24, 2016 Overview Freedom
More informationTHE LAW OF CANADA IN RELATION TO UNDRIP
THE LAW OF CANADA IN RELATION TO UNDRIP Although the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) is not a binding legal instrument and has never been ratified as a treaty would be, the
More informationTHE STORIES WE TELL: SITE-C, TREATY 8, AND THE DUTY TO CONSULT AND ACCOMMODATE
APPEAL VOLUME 23 n 3 ARTICLE THE STORIES WE TELL: SITE-C, TREATY 8, AND THE DUTY TO CONSULT AND ACCOMMODATE Rachel Gutman * CITED: (2018) 23 Appeal 3 INTRODUCTION....4 I. SECTION 35(1) INFRINGEMENT AND
More informationResearch ranc. i1i~ EQUALITY RIGHTS: SUPREME COURT OF CANADA DECISION. Philip Rosen Law and Government Division. 22 February 1989
Mini-Review MR-29E EQUALITY RIGHTS: SUPREME COURT OF CANADA DECISION Philip Rosen Law and Government Division 22 February 1989 A i1i~ ~10000 ~i;~ I Bibliothèque du Parlement Research ranc The Research
More informationYou can make a simple, one-time donation of $5 or $10 right here.
What is this document? This document isn t a summary as much as a kind of flowchart to help you with fact patterns in Professor Sheppard s Constitutional Law class. It doesn t summarize the entire course
More informationDiscrimination means treating people differently, negatively or adversely without a good reason.
Canadian Human Rights Act Last updated November 1998 Every individual should have an equal opportunity with other individuals to make for himself or herself the life that he or she is able and wishes to
More informationBiosecurity Law Reform Bill
Biosecurity Law Reform Bill 15 November 2010 ATTORNEY-GENERAL LEGAL ADVICE CONSISTENCY WITH THE NEW ZEALAND BILL OF RIGHTS ACT 1990: BIOSECURITY LAW REFORM BILL 1. We have considered whether the Biosecurity
More informationand THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA AND CLIFFS NATURAL RESOURCES INC ORDER
Federal Court Cour fédérale Date: 20130315 Docket: T-1820-11 Ottawa, Ontario, March 15, 2013 PRESENT: Madam Prothonotary Aronovitch BETWEEN: MARTEN FALLS FIRST NATION, WEBEQUIE FIRST NATION, NIBINAMIK
More informationTHAT WHICH GIVES US LIFE. The Syilx People have always governed our land according to principles that are entrenched in traditional knowledge.
THAT WHICH GIVES US LIFE The Syilx People have always governed our land according to principles that are entrenched in traditional knowledge. The Syilx/Okanagan People are: A Non-treaty First Nation and
More informationCHURCH LAW BULLETIN NO. 27
CHURCH LAW BULLETIN NO. 27 Carters Professional Corporation / Société professionnelle Carters Barristers, Solicitors & Trade-mark Agents / Avocats et agents de marques de commerce OCTOBER 28, 2009 Editor:
More informationLEGAL REVIEW OF FIRST NATIONS RIGHTS TO CARBON CREDITS
REPORT 6: LEGAL REVIEW OF FIRST NATIONS RIGHTS TO CARBON CREDITS Prepared For: The Assembly of First Nations Prepared By: March 2006 The views expressed herein are those of the author and not necessarily
More informationLandmark Case MANDATORY MINIMUM SENTENCE FOR MURDER R. v. LATIMER
Landmark Case MANDATORY MINIMUM SENTENCE FOR MURDER R. v. LATIMER Prepared for the Ontario Justice Education Network by a Law Student from Pro Bono Students Canada R. v. Latimer (2001) Facts Tracy Latimer
More informationCANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS
CANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS efc.ca /pages/law/charter/charter.text.html Being Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982 [Enacted by the Canada Act 1982 [U.K.] c.11; proclaimed in force April 17,
More information(1 August 2014 to date) EMPLOYMENT EQUITY ACT 55 OF (Gazette No , Notice No dated 19 October 1998.
(1 August 2014 to date) [This is the current version and applies as from 1 August 2014, i.e. the date of commencement of the Employment Equity Amendment Act 47 of 2013 to date] EMPLOYMENT EQUITY ACT 55
More informationCity of Toronto Clamps Down on Medical Marihuana Dispensaries
Background City of Toronto Clamps Down on Medical Marihuana Dispensaries By Peter Gross On May 26, 2016, the City of Toronto (the City ) by-law enforcement officers laid charges against 79 medical marihuana
More information