POLB LEC9 CASES

Carter v. Canada

“life. liberty. security”

Carter v. Canada was a major Supreme Court case about assisted death. It involved people like Gloria Taylor, who was suffering from ALS, a painful and incurable disease. The law in Canada at the time made it illegal for doctors to help someone end their life, even if that person was suffering and wanted to die with dignity. Gloria and others challenged this law, saying it went against their rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

One of the main rights they focused on was Section 7 of the Charter, which protects the right to life, liberty, and security of the person. At first, it might sound like banning assisted death supports the right to life. But the Court saw it differently. They realized that for people with serious illnesses, the ban could actually make things worse. Because assisted death was illegal, some people felt they had to take their own lives earlier than they wanted to, while they were still physically able to do it on their own. This meant the law was actually pushing people to die sooner — which goes against the idea of protecting life.

The Supreme Court agreed that this situation violated the right to life. They also said it violated liberty and security, because people were being forced to suffer through painful and unbearable conditions with no legal option to end their lives. So, in 2015, the Court decided that the total ban on physician-assisted dying was unconstitutional. They ruled that adults who are mentally competent and suffering from a grievous and irremediable medical condition should be allowed to make the choice to die with medical help, if they freely consent.

This case led to a big change in Canadian law. The government later passed Bill C-14, which created rules for medical assistance in dying (MAID). The Carter case is important because it showed that the right to life isn’t just about keeping people alive — it’s also about letting people have control over the end of their life when they are suffering in ways that can’t be cured.

R v. Blencoe

“life, liberty, security”

The right to liberty in Canada comes from Section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which says everyone has the right to life, liberty, and security of the person. At first, the courts mostly focused on liberty in the context of the justice system — for example, the right to not be put in jail without a fair trial. It was mostly about freedom from being wrongly detained or punished.

But over time, the courts began to see liberty more broadly. They realized it’s not just about being free from prison — it’s also about having the freedom to make important personal choices about your own life, body, and dignity. One key case that shows how liberty has been interpreted is R v. Blencoe (2000).

In the Blencoe case, a former B.C. cabinet minister named Robin Blencoe was facing sexual harassment allegations. The legal process took a very long time — over 30 months — which he said ruined his reputation and caused him emotional stress. He argued that the delay violated his Section 7 rights, including his liberty and security of the person.

The Supreme Court disagreed in this case and said that while the delay was unfair, it didn’t go far enough to breach his liberty under Section 7. The Court explained that liberty protects our ability to make important personal choices, especially when it comes to decisions about our bodies or personal autonomy — not just our reputation. They said emotional stress from public shame or delays, while harmful, didn’t count as a violation of liberty in this case.

Even though Blencoe lost, the case was important because the Court used it to clarify what “liberty” means under the Charter. It includes freedom to make significant personal decisions, especially about your body, health, and lifestyle. This broader meaning of liberty is what later helped protect abortion rights in Canada. The courts have said that being forced to carry a pregnancy you don’t want violates your liberty, because it takes away your ability to make a deeply personal decision about your body and future.

So, in simple terms:

Liberty used to just mean "not being locked up." But now it also means the right to make big personal choices — like decisions about your body, medical care, and family life. That’s why it’s been important in cases about abortion, assisted dying, and more.

Re: BC motor vehicles issue

“fundamental justice”

Re Bc Motor Vehicles Issue

“Fundamental justice” is part of Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which protects the right to life, liberty, and security of the person — but only if those rights are not taken away except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. The phrase “fundamental justice” basically means fair treatment under the law. One key case that shaped what this means is Re B.C. Motor Vehicle Act (1985).

In this case, a man was caught driving while his license was suspended. Under B.C. law at the time, this was a “strict liability offence” — meaning that if you were found driving while suspended, you could be sent to jail, even if you didn’t know your license was suspended or didn’t mean to break the law. That’s where the problem came in. It seemed unfair — or unjust — to lock someone up without even giving them a chance to explain or prove they didn’t knowthey were breaking the law.

The Supreme Court of Canada saw this as a violation of fundamental justice. They said that it is not just about whether a law was followed — it’s also about whether the law itself is fair and just. The Court ruled that if a law allows people to be put in jail without proof of fault or intention, that’s not in line with the values of fairness and justice that are expected in the legal system.

What’s especially important about this case is that the Court used it to expand the meaning of “fundamental justice”beyond just following proper legal procedures. They said that the principles of fundamental justice come from the values and fairness built into the legal system itself — things like the presumption of innocence, the right to a fair trial, and not punishing someone who didn’t mean to do anything wrong.

So in simple terms:

The Court said it’s not fair to send someone to jail for something they didn’t know they were doing. That’s not just a mistake — it goes against the deeper values of fairness in our justice system. And that’s what “fundamental justice” is all about.

R v. Heywood

“fundamental justice” - overbreadth

In R v. Heywood, a man had previously been convicted of a sex offence. Later, under a law meant to protect children, he was banned from being in public parks, playgrounds, schools, and other places where kids might be — for the rest of his life, without needing to be told or given a chance to challenge it.

But here’s the issue:

• The law didn’t require a connection to children in his past crime.

• It also banned him from huge areas, even places where kids weren’t likely to be.

• And it applied automatically, with no notice or hearing.

The Supreme Court of Canada found this law to be too broad and unfair. It violated Section 7 of the Charter — the right to life, liberty, and security of the person — because it restricted someone’s freedom in a major way without proper safeguards or fairness.

R v. Bedford

“fundamental justice” gross-proportionalaty

In R v. Bedford (2013), the Supreme Court looked at laws surrounding prostitution in Canada. While sex work itself wasn’t illegal, laws that banned things like operating a brothel or communicating for sex in public made it nearly impossible for sex workers to stay safe. The Court said these laws were "grossly disproportionate" — meaning the harm they caused to sex workers (like increasing their risk of violence) was far greater than any benefit of reducing nuisance or crime. Similarly, in the Insite case (2011), the federal government refused to give a legal exemption to a supervised injection site in Vancouver, even though it helped save lives and reduce harm. The Court ruled that denying the exemption was also grossly disproportionate, because it put people’s health and lives at risk in order to promote a law-and-order goal. In both cases, the Court emphasized that government actions or laws can’t cause more harm than the problems they’re trying to fix.

R v. Chaoulli

“fundamental justice” - Arbitrariness

• R v. Chaoulli, the court was considering the prohibition of private medical services in quebec to save the public system 

• Imagine everyone in your town uses the same school (the "public system"). Now, some people wanted to go to a different, private school. The government made a rule saying you couldn't go to a private school because they thought it would make the public school weaker.

• Mclachlin thought that it was arbitrary to ban these services 

• One of the important judges, named Mclachlin, thought this rule was "arbitrary." She thought that stopping people from choosing a private doctor might not really be the best or fairest way to make the public healthcare system better. It didn't seem to directly solve the problem.

• Bedford - where there is no rational connection between the means used and the aim, the law can be unconstitutionally arbitrary 

• This is saying that if there's no good, logical reason why a law should help achieve its goal, then the law might be unfairly "arbitrary" and go against the important rules of the country.