Philosophy 2080 Study Guide - Fundamental Justice, R V Drybones, Homeschooling

• School: Western University
• Department: Philosophy
• Course: Philosophy 2080
• Professor: James Hildebrand

Document Summary

Philosophy of law: constitutional law cases: v. drybones. Drybones was charged under s. 94(b) of the indian act which stated that no indian could be intoxicated off a reserve. Convicted at trial, acquitted on appeal: appeal court agreed with mr. justice morrow that s. 94(b) infringed right that all are equal before the law. Supreme court upheld acquittal: concurring opinions. Indian but as between all canadians whether indian or non-indian: dissenting opinions. Cartwright: no doubt that respondent was guilty of the offence, assuming that s. 94(b) infringes s. (1)b of the bill, questioned parliaments intent on giving power/responsibility to courts to declare inoperative provisions in. Pigeon: argued that it would seem to indicate that the bill of rights merely enacts a rule of construction. Rights does not allow the courts not to decline to apply the law. Abbot: agreed with both cartwright and pigeon: v. oakes. Oakes was caught with 8 vials of hashish oil and an excessive amount of cash.