Mapleleafweb.com: Research - Supreme Court Of Canada Charter Summaries Mapleleafweb.com, Canada's Premier Political Website summaries Supreme Court of Canada charter decisions You are here Home Supreme Court Summaries Welcome to the Mapleleafweb.com's canadian supreme court Charter Decision Summary and Research Resource http://www.mapleleafweb.com/scc/public3
Extractions: Update Mailing List Subscribe Subscribe Unsubscribe Welcome to the Mapleleafweb.com's Canadian Supreme Court Charter Decision Summary and Research Resource. We are still placing a lot of the charter summaries on the site, and certain sections have yet to be completed. So please be patient as we complete this section. Mills v. The Queen
Extractions: OTTAWA (CNN) In a landmark gay rights ruling that could have ramifications across Canada, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Ontario's legal definition of a spouse as someone of the opposite sex is unconstitutional. The high court, by an 8-to-1 vote, gave Canada's most populous province six months to amend its Family Law Act to recognize same-sex couples. However, the court stressed that the ruling should not be construed as giving same-sex couples the right to marry. The decision was the Supreme Court's most definitive ruling yet on the legal rights of gays and lesbians in Canada. While Thursday's ruling applies directly only to Ontario, observers believe it could mean that hundreds of laws on both the federal and provincial levels will have to be rewritten.
Extractions: Read the following summaries of Supreme Court cases and decide how you would vote on each if you were one of the Justices; then find out which current or recently retired Justice most closely agrees with your opinions. There are ten cases. Time to complete this quiz will depend on how much thought you put into each case, but we suggest you budget at least 15 to 20 minutes total. Of course, we hope that the real Supreme Court takes much more time than that. You might want to read the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms before you start, because as a Supreme Court Justice, interpreting that document is a big part of your job. There will be a quiz. These cases are supposed to provide a cross-section of interesting and divisive cases; the choice of cases is skewed a little in favour of the quiz author's favourite subjects, but the case summaries are attempting to be unbiased. In case the case summaries here are not enough for you, each style of cause is linked to the complete decision. Every answer on this quiz corresponds to the opinion of at least one of the Justices, and so in theory there should be no dramatically wrong answers possible. You must decide all cases to receive a result. The Honourable Mr. Justice Morris J. Fish is not included because he has not published enough decisions yet for meaningful comparison; a future version of the quiz may include him or have new or different cases. Cases and opinions are listed in random order to reduce bias. Presented by
Supreme Court Of Canada NUCLEAR Favorite Links Supreme Court of Canada LINKS Saddam canadian supreme court dressed up like bishops http://jamesbredin0.tripod.com/numbertwelve/id6.html
Extractions: Canadian Supreme Court dressed up like bishops FIX CANADA Supreme Court Appointees By James Bredin The Supreme Court judges are appointed to the bench, Without hearings or questions from the public trench, 'Bout special interests that could influence a case, Or conduct in the past that could bring lots of disgrace. The danger is in their political connections Are they influenced by feminists with objections? They're appointed for life, till 75 or die, And their time on the bench could see justice say goodbye. Canadians are not allowed to have these notions, Not allowed to question political promotions, And propaganda restrains any public clamor, 'Bout dictatorship or nepotism with a hammer. The hidden connections are therefore under the table
Canada: Web: Canadian Supreme Court Upholds Marijuana Law canadian supreme court UPHOLDS MARIJUANA LAW. by Phillip S. Smith, Editor. 26 Dec 2003. Drug War Chronicle. Cannabis Battle Heads Back to Parliament Cannabis Battle Heads Back to Parliament. The http://www.mapinc.org/ctcnews/v03/n1986/a03.html
Extractions: The Supreme Court of Canada ruled Tuesday that laws making marijuana possession a criminal offense potentially punishable by jail time do not violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The ruling came in the conjoined cases of David Malmo-Levine, Chris Clay and Victor Caine, all of whom argued that the harmfulness of marijuana did not rise to a level that allowed the government to threaten their liberty and personal security through criminal sanctions. Instead, the court agreed with government lawyers, who argued that the laws should stand unless and until parliament decides to change them. "We conclude that it is within Parliament's legislative jurisdiction to criminalize the possession of marijuana, should it choose to do so," said the decision, co-written by Justices Charles Gonthier and Ian Binnie. "Equally, it is open to Parliament to decriminalize or otherwise modify any aspect of the marijuana laws that it no longer considers to be good public policy... The evidence indicates the existence of both use and misuse by chronic users and by vulnerable groups who cause harm to themselves," said the 6-3 opinion. "There is no free-standing constitutional right to smoke 'pot' for recreational purposes." The dissenting justices scoffed at the majority's public health claims and said that it had only vague data to back up those claims. "Canadians do not expect to go to jail whenever they embark on some adventure which involves a possibility of injury to themselves," wrote Justice Louise Arbour said. "I see no reason to single out those who may jeopardize their health by smoking marijuana." But that was the minority opinion.
Extractions: Subscribe Book of Lists Sales Power Marketplace ... News by Industry News by Markets bizjournals.com Albany Albuquerque Atlanta Austin Baltimore Birmingham Boston Buffalo Charlotte Cincinnati Columbus Dallas Dayton Denver East Bay Greensboro Honolulu Houston Jacksonville Kansas City Los Angeles Louisville Memphis Milwaukee Mpls./St. Paul Nashville Orlando Philadelphia Phoenix Pittsburgh Portland Raleigh/Durham Sacramento St. Louis San Antonio San Francisco San Jose Seattle South Florida Tampa Bay Washington Wichita Home St. Louis Archive May ... Contact Us
Extractions: 15 YEAR ANNIVERSARY OF CANADIAN SUPREME COURT'S PRO-ABORTION RULING On January 28 1988, the Supreme Court of Canada struck down Canada's already permissive abortion law to create the current situation of lawlessness on abortion. However, the Supreme Court also said that it was up to Parliament to produce legislation to protect new human life. "As a young person who has was not even born in 1969 and one who is passionately opposed to the killing of unborn children, I feel I can speak about this particular anniversary," said Gillian Long, on behalf of Campaign Life Coalition. "The early feminists who pushed for so-called 'freedom of choice' over their own bodies are not relevant to today's youth. We reject the old rhetoric and we understand that human life begins at the time of conception (fertilization)", she continued. "The child in the womb is not a blob of tissue or a collection of cells as stated in 1969. The scientific facts speak for themselves and we speak for the defenseless child," she added.
Extractions: zJs=10 zJs=11 zJs=12 zJs=13 zc(5,'jsc',zJs,9999999,'') About Environmental Issues Home Essentials ... Glossary zau(256,152,180,'gob','http://z.about.com/5/ad/go.htm?gs='+gs,''); Activism Climate Change Energy Sources Election 2004 ... Help zau(256,138,125,'el','http://z.about.com/0/ip/417/0.htm','');w(xb+xb); Subscribe to the About Environmental Issues newsletter. Search Environmental Issues Environmental Issues Blog Main Canadian Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Monsanto Canadian Supreme Court ruled in favor of agribusiness in the case of Monsanto v. Schmeiser today. The case began in August 1998, when Monsanto filed a statement alleging that Schmeiser had illegally purchased Roundup Ready(R) Canola seed from local growers to plant with his 1997 crop, then retained some of that year's seed to plant the next year. Schmeiser insists that his own crops were contaminated with Monsanto's patented GE seed. Farmer Loses Right to Farm GE Free, Monsanto Wins Right to Genetic Pollution
Extractions: Delgamuukw v. B.C. is a pivotal decision in the evolution of Canadian law on Aboriginal rights. Numerous meetings, round-tables, workshops and conferences have been held to discuss its potential impact on litigation and negotiation. Delgamuukw has also served as a vehicle for discussion of more fundamental issues such as the appropriateness of selecting the judicial forum to resolve Aboriginal title claims and the role of legal reasoning in furthering the process of colonization. Given the influence of British colonial law on the development of Aboriginal rights jurisprudence in former British colonies and the restrictions placed by evidentiary presumptions originating in English courts, Delgamuukw may also have persuasive precedential value outside of Canada. In particular, the Supreme Court's elaboration of the concept of Aboriginal rights and its discussion of the weight to be given to oral histories may influence other commonwealth courts which face the demanding task of accommodating the rights of colonized peoples within a contemporary political and legal rights regime. The importance of Delgamuukw is evident when it is considered with reference to earlier decisions of the Supreme Court and the reasoning of lower court judges hearing the case. Since the recognition and affirmation of Aboriginal rights in the Canadian Constitution
Extractions: Ottawa, , Apr. 29 (UPI) Canada's Supreme Court agreed Thursday to hear Lego Co.'s appeal of a lower court ruling about the bumps on its plastic toy blocks. Lego said the court's decision suggests the dispute is one of a small group of "exceptional cases involving issues of national importance," the Canadian Broadcasting Corp. reported. Lego Canada and Lego holding company Kirkbi AG took Canadian toymaker Mega Blok to trial in 1996, claiming the look of Mega Blok's products infringed on Lego's trademark. They wanted an injunction and damages from Mega Blok. Lego believes it has a trademark on the look of the bumps on its blocks, although the patent expired in 1978. The company is "committed to protecting its intellectual property rights and to safeguarding the public from imitations which tend to cause confusion with consumers," general counsel Poul Hartvig Nielsen said. Suffering doesn't matter for living UK to lead E. Europe bloc in EU reform bid
Extractions: Newsbrief: Canadian Supreme Court to Rule Next Week on Key Marijuana Cases Will it be a jolly green Christmas or a stocking full of ashes? Canadian cannabis consumers and advocates will find out on Tuesday, when the Canadian Supreme Court will announce its ruling in a trio of cases that have the potential to nullify the country's laws against marijuana possession. In an announcement sent out on its e-mail list, the court said it would rule on the cases at 9:45am on December 23. The appellants in all three cases, David Malmo-Levine, Victor Caine and Christopher Clay, were all found guilty of marijuana possession offenses. All three appealed their convictions, arguing the Canadian Charter of Rights prohibits the government from creating criminal penalties for marijuana possession. In recent years, Canadian marijuana policy has been in severe flux, with some Canadian courts briefly legalizing marijuana possession because of the government's failure to act to make medical marijuana available to patients. The government of recently retired former Prime Minister Jean Chretien, meanwhile, proceeded with a bill that would have decriminalized marijuana possession, but increased penalties for all but the smallest grow ops. That bill died when Chretien adjourned parliament last month, but as DRCNet reported last week, new Prime Minister Paul Martin has indicated he will reintroduce the bill. But all of that could be rendered moot by a favorable Supreme Court decision Tuesday. Stay tuned.
Gay News From 365Gay.com canadian supreme court Puts Off Marriage Hearing by Ben Thompson 365Gay.comNewscenter Ottawa Bureau Posted February 20, 2004 801 pm ET. http://www.365gay.com/newscon04/02/022004canDelay.htm
Extractions: Posted: February 20, 2004 8:01 p.m. ET (Ottawa) The Supreme Court of Canada Friday announced it was delaying any consideration same-sex marriage until fall. The government of former Prime Minister Jean Chretien had sent the court draft legislation granting marriage rights to same-sex couples after courts in Ontario and British Columbia ruled the exclusion of gays was unconstitutional. Paul Martin who succeeded Chretien in November announced he would have the draft bill rewritten to ask the court if civil unions would suffice. The move was attacked by gay groups accusing Martin of attempting to delay a Supreme Court decision until after an expected spring election. The court said today that it has set aside three days in October to consider the validity of Ottawa's proposed legislation.
Extractions: Account Signup Canadian Supreme Court Strengthens Divorce Agreements By Brian Carnell Sunday, May 4, 2003 In a 7-2 ruling the Canadian Supreme Court reversed several lower court rulings in saying that divorce agreements should be respected unless truly unforeseen circumstances occur that require revisiting them. The case before the Court involved Linda Miglin who succeeded in having lower courts revise a divorce agreement she had reached with her husband in 1994. The Miglins owned a successful lodge in which they had capital of about $250,000. The divorce agreement called for Eric Miglin to pay his wife $60,000/year in child support, employ her for 5 years at $15,000/year as a consultant for the lodge, and swap her interest in the lodge for the family home (which was worth roughly $250,000). Eric Miglin fulfilled his obligations under the divorce agreement, but years later, apparently having difficulty finding a job, Linda Miglin asked a court to grant her $4,400 a month in spousal support even though the divorce agreement between the couple specifically ruled out any future spousal support. Linda Miglin argued that she didn't realize what she was signing away with the divorce agreement, a contention that the Supreme Court didn't lend credence given that both parties were represented by lawyers whose job it was to defend their interests.