Class Notes (839,150)
Canada (511,218)
York University (35,583)
Social Science (3,019)
SOSC 1185 (65)
Lecture

Topic 10 Lecture.docx

6 Pages
57 Views

Department
Social Science
Course Code
SOSC 1185
Professor
Stanley Tweyman

This preview shows pages 1 and half of page 2. Sign up to view the full 6 pages of the document.
Description
1 When Rights Conflict Community Consensus: • Who decides? - Does there need to be a sense of social solidarity? o Not everyone can agree on everything (i.e. abortion – social justice vs. independence) • Is there a difference between choosing/not choosing something for ourselves and prohibiting others from making different choices? Charter of Rights and Freedoms (1982): (DEFINITION ON TEST) • Enacted in the ConstitutionAct of 1982 • Aprofound shift of power from the parliament to judicial body • It guarantees “all Canadians rights to liberty, equality under the law, and freedom of religion, expression, association and peaceful assembly” • Regulates relationships between government and a person (people) Only institutions of the office can infringe upon one’s Charter rights. It only applies to the government. (Must be clearly a government institution such as police and public schools) That (i.e. York) institution cannot infringe upon your Charter rights. It would be a case of Human Rights being violated. Charter and Democracy: • Parliament - democratically elected lawmaking institution (they can overturn whatever the courts say) • Courts interpret the rights as they are set out in the Charter Rights: • Rights are ‘fundamental’, but they are not ‘absolute’(they can be squashed whenever the government wants to, (i.e. War MeasuresAct). • Courts interpret rights • Sec. 1: The Reasonable Limits Clause. Governments can only proscribe limits that can be DEMONSTRABLY justified in a free and democratic society (TEST) • Sec. 33: the Notwithstanding Clause (only applies to Sec. 2, 7-14 and 15) (TEST) R. v. Oakes (1986) - • David Edwin Oakes found with 8 x 1 gram vials of hash oil and $600 in cash • Reverse Onus: Mr. Oakes had to prove that he wasn’t a drug dealer • Defence: Sec. 8: Presumption of innocence • Charged with being a drug dealer. They presumed he was a drug dealer, therefore, violating sec. 8 – the presumption of innocence. He had to prove he was not a drug dealer – reverse onus. Prosecution: Sec. 1: Reasonable limit 1. Prescribe by law (has to be written by law) – limitation must be part of law 2. The objective of the law must be pressing and substantial (i.e. tough on drug dealers) 3. Proportionality: i. Rational connection (absent in this case because there was no rational connection in presuming that he is guilty) ii. Minimal impairment (many Sec. 1 arguments fail to meet this). If you can prove there is another way of limiting something without limiting a freedom, the government should have done that first. (I.e. something that would not impair the rights of 14 year olds to drive, No other way – this is the minimal impairment). In this case, this was not the case. They didn’t have to presume he was guilty and violate sec. 8. iii. Proportionality: balancing the negative effect of limitation with positive effects of the law on society (Our rights are fundamental, in order to take away the rights, something has to be really serious. Therefore, discriminating against 14 year olds, is it benefit to the entire society? Yes. In this case, no.) 3 The Oakes Test: is used every time a Charter violation is deliberated in Courts Proportionality – i.e. kids not being able to drive – presumed idiocy, protects society, prescribing discriminatory laws – must be a rational connection (i.e. infants idiocy to not being able to drive) Polygamy: • Sec. 293 of the Criminal Code prohibits polygamy in Canada – reflects “Christian norms and values from 120 years ago” – “You must have a large family, men have multiple wives.” This practice reinforces inequality, discriminates against women, and causes further discrimination. • Must the law enforce the norm to the exclusion of all others? Toronto Star Newspapers ltd. V. Canada (2010) • Do publication bans limit the Freedom of Expression?Are they a ‘reasonable limits prescribed by law’? • Freedom of Expression and Publication Bans: o Sec. 517 of the Canadian Criminal Code – if accused requests a ban on media about his/her bail hearing, a publication ban must be granted • Alberta: a man charged with murdering his wife + Ontario: 17 people charged with terrorism related charges • Do publication bans limit the Freedom of Expression? o Courts found it was reasonable to protect s. 8 • Are they a “reasonable limit prescribed by law”? Canada (Prime Minister) v. Omar Khadr (EXAM) • On Jan. 29 , 2010 the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the government is not required to request the return of Omar Khadr to Canada • Khadr had the right not to be deprived of liberty (Sec. 7) –
More Less
Unlock Document

Only pages 1 and half of page 2 are available for preview. Some parts have been intentionally blurred.

Unlock Document
You're Reading a Preview

Unlock to view full version

Unlock Document

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