click below
click below
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) |