Cases Flashcards
(16 cards)
Wolf lies down
A case of borrowing and returning a horse demonstrates these four functions. The law defines relationships (borrowing), allocates authority (elders), resolves disputes (mediation), and adapts (new rules to prevent future problems).
Tanzania case
A community-driven conflict resolution model where all impacted parties participate.
Christie v. York Corp (1940)
Christie, a Black man, denied service at a Montreal bar despite being served before. sued for discrimination under a law requiring service in licensed establishments.
Court Ruling: Initially ruled in Christie’s favor, but on appeal, the courts sided with York, stating the law didn’t apply to this case. Supreme Court rejected the racial discrimination argument.
Implication: This case reveals how legal structures can obscure and perpetuate racial injustice, using narrow legal interpretations to maintain systemic racism
R. v. Dudley & Stephens (1884)
-Four sailors stranded on a lifeboat in the open sea, decide to kill a sick and weakened cabin boy (Parker) to survive. They were rescued after 24 days, and the case revolves around whether killing Parker constitutes murder.
-Found guilty of murder, but given a reduced sentence due to the “prerogative of mercy.” The case demonstrates the tension between moral justification and the law’s rigid framework.
Latimer Case (2001)
facts: Robert Latimer killed his disabled daughter, Tracy, who suffered from severe pain. He argued it was a “mercy killing” to end her suffering.
Defense: Latimer claimed necessity (saving her from unbearable suffering).
Outcome: Found guilty, despite the plea for mercy; the case set the precedent for the necessity defense in Canada.
R. v. Butler (1992)
facts: Butler owned a porn shop in Winnipeg, selling explicit material. Charged with possessing obscene materials.
Issue: How do we define “obscenity”? Is it a violation of rights? used the community standards test to determine if the material was obscene
Important Idea: The Court emphasized that laws on obscenity are not just moral judgments, but must be concerned with harm.
Little Sisters v. Canada (2000)
facts: Little Sisters, a bookstore in Vancouver catering to the queer community, faced discrimination at the Canadian border. Shipments of materials deemed “obscene” were seized, especially materials related to same-sex relationships
Issue: Discrimination under the community standards test, materials seized due to sexual orientation bias.
Outcome: The Supreme Court ruled that Little Sisters was unfairly targeted, recognizing discrimination, but did not challenge the broader “community standards” test.
Swingers Club Case (R. v. Labaye, 2005)
-facts: The owner of a swingers club in Montreal was charged with operating a “body house” (brothel) for hosting consensual sex parties.
-Issue: Is this activity indecent or harmful? Does it violate societal norms or cause harm to society?
-outcome: The Supreme Court ruled that the club was not a body house, highlighting that consensual sexual activity between adults in a private setting is not inherently harmful
Roncarelli v. Duplessis
Quebec Premier Duplessis revoked a restaurant owner’s liquor license due to his religious beliefs. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Roncarelli, asserting limits on executive power and reinforcing the rule of law.
Firearms Reference
The federal government created a firearms registry, leading to debates about whether it exceeded its powers. Some provinces argued it was ultra vires (beyond its constitutional authority).
R. v. Oakes (1986)
-Case Summary: Oakes was charged with drug trafficking under a law that assumed anyone possessing a large amount of drugs intended to traffic them. Oakes argued that this law violated his Charter rights by forcing him to prove his innocence.
-Court’s Ruling: The Supreme Court agreed the law was unconstitutional. It created a test to determine if a law that limits rights is justified, requiring a clear connection between the law’s goal and the rights it infringes.
Multani Case (Kirpan Case)
-facts: A student in Quebec wore a kirpan (a religious dagger) to school, and it fell out. The school wanted to ban the kirpan due to safety concerns, leading to a legal challenge.
-Supreme Court Question: Is preventing the student from wearing his kirpan a justifiable infringement on his freedom of religion?
-The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the student, allowing him to wear the kirpan. This case highlights the balancing of competing interests and rights under the Oakes Test.
Gorris v. Scott
A case about whether a law requiring sheep to be separated by a fence (to prevent disease) applied when sheep were washed overboard in a storm. The court interpreted the law in light of its intended purpose: preventing disease, not preventing sheep from being washed away
Persons Case
A case where women were initially denied the right to be appointed as senators. The court had to decide whether women were “persons” under the law.
R v. Hasselwander:
-issue: Whether a “mini uzi” gun, which can be easily modified to fire automatically, qualifies as a prohibited firearm. The question was whether “capable” means immediately capable or includes guns that can be easily modified.
-Decision: The court ruled that “capable” includes firearms that can be easily modified, so the defendant was found guilty.
R v. Scott
-issue: Whether Scott could be convicted of robbery with a real firearm when it wasn’t clear if the weapon he used was real or an imitation.
-Decision: The court could not charge Scott with a real firearm offense without proof that the weapon was real, as there was reasonable doubt it could have been a fake gun.
