Busy. Please wait.
or

show password
Forgot Password?

Don't have an account?  Sign up 
or

Username is available taken
show password

why


Make sure to remember your password. If you forget it there is no way for StudyStack to send you a reset link. You would need to create a new account.
We do not share your email address with others. It is only used to allow you to reset your password. For details read our Privacy Policy and Terms of Service.


Already a StudyStack user? Log In

Reset Password
Enter the associated with your account, and we'll email you a link to reset your password.
Don't know
Know
remaining cards
Save
0:01
To flip the current card, click it or press the Spacebar key.  To move the current card to one of the three colored boxes, click on the box.  You may also press the UP ARROW key to move the card to the "Know" box, the DOWN ARROW key to move the card to the "Don't know" box, or the RIGHT ARROW key to move the card to the Remaining box.  You may also click on the card displayed in any of the three boxes to bring that card back to the center.

Pass complete!

"Know" box contains:
Time elapsed:
Retries:
restart all cards
Embed Code - If you would like this activity on your web page, copy the script below and paste it into your web page.

  Normal Size     Small Size show me how

Constitutional

Cases

QuestionAnswer
Connolly v. Woolrich [1867] Acknowledged origins of Aboriginal rights in pre-contact legal systems
St. Catherine’s Milling [1887] - Royal Proclamation as sole source of Aboriginal land rights - Aboriginal land rights only "personal" and "usufructuary" (burden on C. otherwise absolute title and extinguishable via legislation).
Calder v. AG of BC [1977] - Aboriginal land rights CL entitlement (distinguished from any treaty/C. action) - Based on historic use and occupation (Guerin) - Royal Proc. [1763] as declaration of preexisting Aboriginal rights Goes beyond acknowledgement in St. Catherine's
Guerin v. The Queen [1984] Facts: Vancouver golf course, misrepresentation of terms by C. Takeaways: - Fiduciary duty of C. arises from sui generis Ab. title and statutory scheme for surrender (ie. only to the C.)
R. v. Sioui [1990] Facts: Huron nation members charged practicing ancestral customs in Prv. park Takeaways: - Use of historical context & treaty as defence - Historical accounts of British/French treating Indigenous nations as “very close to” sovereign (p. 40)
Chippewas of the Sarnia v. Canada (AG) [2001] - History of Indigenous - British relations up to 1860 (gaining support, protecting rights) - Two-row Wampum for Treaty of Niagara [1764] = “...based on peace, friendship, & mutual respect.”
Mitchell v MNR [2001] - Prior to Constitution Act 1982 gov’t could unilaterally extinguish Aboriginal rights - s. 35(1) elevated them from CL to Constitutional → gov’t can still limit “for justifiable reasons”/”substantial and compelling public objectives”
Tsilhqot’in Nation v. BC [2014] - Granted Tsilhqot’in title over land - Gov’t breached duty to consult - Characterized legal title as: beneficial, originating pre-sovereignty, only limited by preservation for future generations, burden on C. sovereignty; - Sui generis
Reference Re: Meaning of the Word “Persons” in s. 24 of the British North America Act, 1867 [1928] (ie. the 1st one) “If s. 24 includes women today, it has… since 1867” - Intention of drafters CL = legal incapacity (Chorlton v Lings) Parliament didn't demonstrate clear intent to depart Women not eligible for appointment to Senate… not “qualified persons.”
Edwards v. A.G. Canada [1930] (ie. the 2nd one) - Lord Sankey: “BNA Act planted in Canada a living tree capable of growth and expansion within its natural limits. The object of the Act was to grant a Constitution to Canada.” - "Persons" is ambiguous - Women are eligible for senate
Reference Re Same Sex Marriage - Federalism argument - Activist - SSM w/in Fed jurisdiction and ... Constitutional **oooh shocking** - Use of "living tree"
Reference Re Quebec Secession [1998] - 4 unwritten principles (see 'principles' card set) - Constitutionally, can the National Assembly, legislature or government of Quebec affect the secession of Quebec from Canada unilaterally? Nope. **What is important is the way the court answers**
Reference Re Firearms Act
Morgentaler - Authority for "pith and substance" - Hidden agenda (Crim), not health
Margarine reference
R. v. Hydro- Quebec [1997] - Purpose of Crim law to uphold our fundamental values (as they change)
Created by: LawStudent2018