click below
click below
Normal Size Small Size show me how
Constitutional
Cases
Question | Answer |
---|---|
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) |