Class Notes (837,836)
Canada (510,504)
York University (35,437)
POLS 3136 (26)
Lecture

Feb. 6, 2014 - Notes on Group Case Law Assignments
Premium

3 Pages
154 Views
Unlock Document

Department
Political Science
Course
POLS 3136
Professor
Jennifer Dalton
Semester
Winter

Description
Group 1 (1939)  Legislation declared ultra vires (Alberta gov’t) o Federalism  Alberta government passed a bunch of laws pertaining to trade and commerce,  laws were challenged  Group1 supported the decision essentially because trade and commerce is under  Federal jurisdiction and the provincial gov’t of Ab. was passing legislation that  they technically lacked authority to implement Group 2 (1953)  Freedom of expression/religion re Quebec by­law  o Provincial or federal jurisdiction? o Federalism ▯ BNA act (by law went outside of provincial jurisdiction, let’s  say, in terms of enforcement)  Agreed with majority submission to strike down by­law because too much police  power  Agreed because of jurisdiction as well:, not power of province = ultra vires,  religion falls within federal gov’ts jurisdiction, doesn’t fall within property and  civil rights o Also falls under criminal law jurisdiction, section 91 not 92, therefore in  that case it also goes to federal gov’t jurisdiction  Inalienability of religious rights due to freedom of expression/religion  Should be mindful not only of what law says on paper, but also what the practical  implications are Group 3 (1985)  R. v. Drugmart  Big M. Drug Mart accused of violating Lord’s day act (section 4), 1932  Freedom of religion re Sabbath and employment  Challenged validity of law  Acquitted at trial, appealed, dismissed, finally sent to SCC for appeal o Constitutional question: whether section 4 violated freedom of religion in  section 2 in charter, and if so if this legislation fell under criminal power  Group agreed: Act not reasonable limit (s. 1) Group 4 (1988)  Sign law – shopkeeper in Quebec sought signs in French and English o Expression of freedom o Question of whether or not this extends to commercial   Legislation infringed 2(b) commercial signage should be in both languages  Group agreed, wanted to see signage in both language a (language is a  fundamental right) – also liked that French culture was ultimately protected Group 5  (1990)  R. v. Keegstra  Court likely took this case because it’s an opportunity to shed light on the charter’s  meaning in terms of freedom of expression Group 6 (1992)  Porn case  Freedom of expression violated (s. 2)  Judges ruled that criminal laws passed by parliament overrule charter  Whether or not video portrayed harm to society  Group agreed, it did, undermined morality, degrading to women, video is violent  Freedom of expression vs. criminal law  Was 55 criminal charges, not a question of whether he violated the law but  whether the laws were unconstitutional  Prof notes: people who are excited by violence, death, etc… it’s descriptive of  being one of characteristics of psychopathy (not normal, and psychopaths are  dangerous to society) General Notes: *tension exists
More Less

Related notes for POLS 3136

Log In


OR

Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


OR

By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.


Submit