Help
Options
Didn't know it?
click below
click below
Knew it?
click below
click below
Don't Know
Remaining cards (0)
Know
retry
shuffle
restart
0:00
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
Normal Size Small Size show me how
ls 202
| Term | Definition |
|---|---|
| necessary elements for legislation | prohibition, penalty, public evil |
| r v. oakes | 1981, caught with hashish oil supposedly for pain relief - reverse onus removed |
| oakes test | laws objective must relate to pressing societal concerns, be rational with minimal impairment |
| r v. keegstra | 1990, taught anti-semitic beliefs in a school, reverse onus deemed reasonable |
| r v. askov | multiple year delay |
| substantive law | guidelines for how people should act |
| procedural law | guidelines for how to enforce the law |
| r v. askov | how long a trial can go on for (years in delays) (JORDAN RULE) also used s.11 |
| core principles of criminal law | presumption of innocence, due process, independent judiciary, transparency |
| core elements of a crime | conduct that's prohibited, penalty that may be imposed |
| true crime | violated community standards, moral culpability |
| regulatory offences | lesser degree of moral culpability, quasi criminal |
| quasi criminal | only have to prove actus reus, balance of probabilities, not regarded as inherently wrong |
| categories of offences | against public/state, against person, against property |
| s.1 | reasonable limits on freedom |
| s.33 | notwithstanding clause (sunset clause of 5 years) |
| s.2 | freedom of assembly, press, etc. (animal activists secretly recording farms) |
| s.6 | limits on employment (certifications), residence periods (live in province for a year b4 healthcare) |
| s.7 | life, liberty, security of the person |
| s.8 | freedom from unreasonable search + seizure |
| s.9 | freedom from arbitrary detention or imprisonment |
| s.10 | right to legal counsel and the guarantee of habeas corpus (challenging arrest/detention) |
| s.11 | presumption of innocence |
| s.12 | no cruel/unusual punishment (used for corporations - large fines that would destroy company 'legal personhood') |
| s.13 | no self incrimination |
| s.14 | right to an interpreter |
| s.15 | equality rights (substantive vs formal equality, social redressing vs legal) |
| jordan rule | 18mos max (provincial court), 30mos max (federal court) |
| 3 parts of keegstra | 1) expressive content under 2b protection, 2) does method/location remove 2b protection, 3) if protected, is gov. infringing on protection? |
| content specific regulation | targeting substantive element of speech (viewpoints) - strict scrutiny test (hard to save under s.1) |
| content neutral regulation | targeting where/when/what/how (time/place), examining disruption to others - minimal scrutiny |
| how to tell if violation of charter justified | means are reasonable + justified, invokes proportionality test, minimally impairs freedoms |
| arbitrary laws | disconnect between limit on liberty and objective of ban (e.g. restricting hairstyles) - rigid, abuse power |
| vague laws | failed to detail practices that are required/prohibited (e.g. banning pitbulls (mixes)) - undermines security |
| overboard laws | "overstretching" the objective (is it POSSIBLE to ban pitbulls?) - advances states interests |
| grossly disproportionate laws | caused harm more severe than the objective/issue that law addresses - ignores context |
| syncrude case | limitations of liability within contract (faulty gear boxes) |
| 3 elements of actus reus | conduct, material circumstances, consequences |
| conduct (e.g. assault) | 'without consent, applies force intentionally' - application of force |
| circumstances (e.g. assault) | applied force causes bodily harm |
| consequences (e.g. assault) | not transient/trifling, interfering with health/comfort of victim |
| exceptions: not required to prove consequences | perjury (lying on stand) |
| exceptions: not required to prove conduct | B/E with housebreaking instruments, occupant of stolen vehicle, care/control of vehicle while impaired |
| why are conduct exceptions not unjust | condition/state invariably preceded by voluntary conduct (mens rea!) |
| buckingham case (2007) | 'risk of danger test' - drunk, waiting for taxi in the car & pressed the accelerator to get warm |
| failure to act commission | requires prior legal duty to act (parent, guardian, spouse), conduct + circumstances |
| voluntarily assuming legal duty | 'solemn undertaking', high threshold for holding someone responsible for another (& willingness ≠ undertaking!) |
| stephan case | 'marked departure' from care + hindsight bias - parents eventually found innocent |
| simultaneity | mens rea continued through act (though acts all considered part of same transaction) - mens rea formed AFTER actus reus ≠ criminal act |
| abbotsford v shantz case (2015) | denying homeless access to public spaces (park) deemed grossly disproportionate, by-law violating charter |
| r v. morrison case (2017) | internet child-luring, presumption that accused knows age - requirement upheld (accused must ATTEMPT to check!) |
| morrison first appeal (by morrison) | minimum sentence (12mos) deemed unreasonable, but law ultimately designed to protect vulnerable children |
| morrison second appeal (by crown) | morrison 'indifferent' to age, sentence upheld |
| PHS community safe injection site case (2011) | ministry of health failed to grant legal exception, common law prohibitions did little reduction & increased risk to all |
| bedford case result | bawdy house, living on avails, & communication provisions violated s.7 of charter - struck down |
| guiding principles for municipalities: recognition of... | violence & risk faced by sex workers |
| guiding principles for municipalities: laws indirectly increasing danger must... | be consistent with legal principles |
| guiding principles for municipalities: state is not entitled to... | jeopardize health & safety of sex workers to 'reduce public nuisance' |
| decriminalization | repealing 'communication' and 'avail' laws |
| legalization | creating regulatory framework with removal of criminal laws |
| bedford case (2013) | laws surrounding prostitution violated security of the person, could not be saved by s.1 |
| kloubakov case (2014) | unclear if objectives were material benefit (capitalizing off sex work?) or protection/safety |
| bill c.36 (2014) | prohibiting PURCHASING sexual services, profiting from exploitation |
Created by:
cheapnmeowing