Law Exam
Topic
Facts and Details
Significance
Magna Carta
England’s King John considered himself above the law
He abused the power of his position
Powerful groups in the land forced King John to sign Magna Carta
“Great Charter”
Recognized principle of rule of law
No one is above the law
King John and all rulers after him had to obey the law
Established the principle of rule of law, and set the precedent that even rulers must obey the law
Rule of Law
Everyone, including the government, must follow the law
Laws should be clear, fair, and applied equally to all people.
Protects people’s rights and ensures no one is above the law.
Helps stop people from abusing power
Makes sure everyone gets treated fairly
Key part of democracy
The Reasonable Limits Clause
Section 1 of the Canadian Charter
The rights and freedoms in the Charter are protected, but can be limited
If those limits are reasonable and justified
Courts are responsible for deciding what "reasonable" and "justified" mean
Allows rights and freedoms to be limited if the limits are reasonable and justified, to balance individual rights with societal needs.
Notwithstanding Clause
Section 33 of the Canadian Charter
Notwithstanding means in spite of
“In spite of the law violating the Charter, the law is going to stand”
It is also known as the Opt-Out Clause
Has only been used a few times
It can only apply to Section 2 (Fundamental Freedoms), Sections 7-14 (Legal Rights) and Section 15 (Equality)
Allows governments to pass laws that override certain Charter rights, even if they violate those rights.
United Nations
Founded in 1945 after World War II to promote peace and cooperation among nations.
Headquarters is located in New York City, USA
Has 193 member states
Adopted The Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948
It plays a huge role in fostering international peace, cooperation, and human rights.
Universal Declaration on Human Rights
International document stating basic rights and freedoms for all humans.
Adopted by the UN General Assembly on December 10, 1948.
Inspired by the atrocities of World War I and II.
Declared that rights are universal and applicable to all people no matter who they are or where they live
Includes:
Civil and political rights (the right to life, liberty, free speech and privacy)
Economic, social and cultural rights (the right to social security, health and education)
Not a treaty
It does not directly create legal obligations for countries
Establishes fundamental human rights for all people, regardless of nationality or background, and serves as a moral and ethical standard for nations
Sovereignty
Supreme authority within a territory
Means being independent and self-governing
Without external control.
Sovereignty includes the power to make, enforce, and interpret laws.
Represents a nation's supreme authority and independence, allowing it to govern itself, make laws, and manage its affairs without any interference.
Indian Act 1876
Governs matters related to Indigenous peoples in Canada, particularly First Nations.
Canadian federal law enacted in 1876
Been amended many times
Was initially aimed to assimilate Indigenous peoples into colonizer’s society
Controlled many aspects of Indigenous lives
Defines who is considered a "Status Indian."
Women lost their status if they married non-Indigenous men
Regulates the governance of First Nations communities.
Manages reserves, resources, and land ownership
Limits Indigenous self-governance
Prohibits reserve land from being privately owned
Historically banned cultural practices
Like the potlatch and Sun Dance
Controlled Indigenous education through residential schools
Amendments in 1951 removed some restrictions but there were still a lot of oppressive policies
Plays a foundational and controversial role in the relationship between Indigenous peoples and the Canadian state
The Indian Act defines who is recognized as "Status Indian".
First act to define who is legally considered an “Indian”
The Canadian Bill of Rights
A signed document
After signing the UDHR in 1948, Canada supported the principles of respecting human dignity
Led to the creation of laws to protect human rights.
Including the Bill of Rights in 1960
Afterward, it was up to the courts to decide what rights were protected under the Bill of Rights
Only applied to federal laws
Canada's first federal human rights law
The Canadian Charter of Rights
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees key rights
Created in 1982
Part of Canada's Constitution, making it nearly impossible to change
It would require a constitutional amendment
Protects a wide range of rights, including democratic, legal, and equality rights
Applies to both federal and provincial governments
Courts interpret these rights, and if a law violates the Charter, it can be struck down
It ensures fundamental rights and freedoms for all Canadians, and gives citizens a chance to challenge unjust government actions.
The Oakes Test
A legal test used by Canadian courts to determine whether a law that limits a Charter right is justified.
It has two main parts:
The law must have an important reason behind it.
The way it limits the right must be reasonable and not too extreme.
Created after the R. v. Oakes case from 1986
David Oakes was charged with drug possession for trafficking
The law made him prove he didn’t intend to sell the drugs
He argued violated his right to be presumed innocent.
The SCC agreed that his rights were violated and said the law was unconstitutional
The law failed the test and the limitation on Oakes’ rights was not justified
Provides a clear standard to determine whether laws that limit Charter rights are justified.
Ensures that any restrictions on rights are necessary, reasonable, and not overly broad, protecting individuals from unjust laws.
Shapes how Canadian courts review laws
Jamal Khashoggi
A journalist who was critical of the Saudi government
especially Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman
Advocated for political reform and human rights in Saudi Arabia
Khashoggi was killed in the Saudi consulate in Turkey, while he was there to obtain documents for his marriage
His death was reported as a planned assassination
Caused global outrage and calls for justice, leading to investigations and diplomatic tensions
Some high-ranking officials were sentenced to death in Saudi Arabia
Many believe the true masterminds were not held accountable
Exposed the failure of the rule of law in holding high-ranking officials accountable
Highlighted how those in power may evade justice
Omar Khadar
Raised in a family with ties to radical Islam
Was captured by U.S. forces in Afghanistan at the age of 14/15
After a firefight during which a US soldier was killed
Khadr was accused of throwing a grenade that killed US Army Sergeant Christopher Speer
He was charged with murder, attempted murder, and terrorism
Held at Guantanamo Bay for 10 years
Coerced into pleading guilty
Transferred to Canada in 2012
Served the remainder of his sentence in a maximum-security prison
Released in 2015 on bail
In 2017, the Canadian government reached a $10.5 million settlement with Khadr, acknowledging his rights were violated during his detention and trial
Highlights the violation of a child's rights, and raises concerns about the protection of human rights under the UDHR.
Common Law
Developed by giving regular punishments across the country
Judges made similar decisions on cases with similar facts
Case Law: Cases are recorded and published. Lawyers use earlier cases to influence judges
Established consistency and fairness in legal decisions. Case law further strengthened this system by allowing previous rulings to guide future decisions
Feudalism: a system where the King owned all land and divided it among lords and nobles (exchange for loyalty and service)
The King appointed judges (the lords) to ensure fair trials across England
Part B: Legal Foundations (For exam - not all of the following topics will be on the exam. You will be given several options and you will have choice - pick 3) - in point form, explain how the topic has influenced contemporary Canadian law (or has the potential to influence) and provide a specific example to support your thinking.
Religion
Judeo-Christian heritage.
The Old Testament
Shared by both Judaism and Christianity
Reflected in the Canadian Criminal Code (prohibitions against murder, theft, and lying)
Echos the Ten Commandments
Deeply entrenched in law and legal process
The Canadian Charter states “Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law”
Highlights the recognition of a higher power
In court, individuals swear oaths on sacred texts
The Lord's Day Act
prohibited sports, entertainment, and shopping on Sundays
Multiple federal holidays based off of Christian holidays
Such as Christmas
History (Britain)
Britain's legal system significantly influenced contemporary Canadian law
Feudalism:
The King controlled land and appointed judges to maintain justice
Over time, common law developed in England through consistent judicial rulings
Case law guided future decisions
Established the rule of law
Even the monarch was not above the law
Set the foundation for legal equality
The Constitution from Britain
Granted Canada full control over its laws in 1982
Added the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Judicial independence
Ensures that Canadian judges make decisions based on law, free from government influence.
Legal Theories
Legal Formalism
Views the law as a set of clear, neutral rules
Should be applied without personal judgment or influence from judges.
Advocates believe that judges should act like scientists or mathematicians
Simply applying the law as it is like a formula
Judges are seen as neutral figures
Not to create social policies or interpret the law beyond what is explicitly written
The Charter challenges this view
Sparks debate over whether judges should only apply existing laws or have a role in shaping legal outcomes
Legal Realism
Rejects legal formalism
Believes that the law is uncertain and open to interpretation
And to a certain extent, based on the judges' views
Argue that judges' decisions can be affected by their mood or personal biases
Which makes judges the true authors of the law
Believe that applying precedent like a scientific formula is unrealistic
Judges often shape legal precedent to fit their own conclusions
Critical Legal Studies
Similar to legal realism but goes further.
Supporters believe the law is not neutral and is based on values.
Argue that the law often supports those in power and can cause injustice.
Judicial decisions are influenced by history and ideology.
The theory says the law should be used to create social justice, and judges can use it to make sure justice is done.
Feminist Jurisprudence
Belief that the legal system supports inequality for women
Political, economic, and social
The way law is written and used reinforces male values
Laws meant to protect women and children suggest that women are treated as men's property
Laws about sexual assault may protect women as objects rather than protect them from violence
Supporters of this view have pushed for changes
Areas like employment, divorce, domestic violence, and sexual harassment
Law Based on Economics
Belief that economics is the best way to look at the law and legal issues.
The main point of law is about allocating resources.
Law should focus on how resources are distributed fairly.
Can be used as a social tool to decide this distribution.
Laws should be evaluated by how they function
A law fining people for not wearing bike helmets being weighed against health system savings from fewer injuries.
Judges should prioritize economics over morality and justice
Technology
Rapid technological expansion over the past 100 years has required new laws
Laws had to determine which level of government is responsible for new technology
In 1932, courts ruled the federal government was responsible for radio broadcasting
Laws have been passed for:
Airplanes and air travel
Cars and driving
Cell phones
Internet and privacy issues
Recent or emerging technologies that may change laws:
Artificial intelligence (AI)
Autonomous (self-driving) vehicles
Cryptocurrencies and blockchain
Drone technology
Biotechnology (e.g., gene editing, CRISPR)
5G networks and its infrastructure
Data privacy and cybersecurity
National and/or International Events
Parliament has passed laws to respond to national emergencies
War Measures Act:
Enacted during World War One
Allowed restrictions on civil liberties due to war
Income Tax introduced in WWI to help cover war costs
Invoked during the October Crisis (1970) or FLQ Crisis
Emergencies Act:
Invoked in 2023 during the convoy protest
the ability to "take special temporary measures that may not be appropriate in normal times" to cope with an emergency and the resulting fallout
EX. infringing free speech while arresting them
Anti-Terrorism Act and Public Safety Act (passed after 9/11 attacks in 2001):
Made terrorism or aiding terrorists punishable by up to 10 years in prison
Allowed police to arrest individuals suspected of terrorist activity
Allowed police to force people to testify in secret investigations
Made it easier to use wiretaps
Allowed the government to freeze the assets of terrorist groups and those suspected of aiding them
Demographics
Canada has changed significantly over the past 100 years
Demographic changes:
Birth/death rates
Immigration patterns
Educational and employment trends
Today, most Canadians live in urban areas
Both parents in families often work outside the home
Women typically did not work outside the home
The shift occurred as men and women moved from rural areas to work in industries in urban centers
100 years ago, most Canadians lived in rural areas
Morality
Laws reflect morality and ethics in Canada.
Morality and religion can overlap
However moral doesn't equal religious
Laws are written rules that reflect what society considers good or bad behavior.
Laws against public indecency (nudity) show moral values, not religious ones.
As Canadian morals evolve, laws change too
Collective Actions/Protest Movements
Played a significant role in shaping Canadian society and its legal and political landscape
These collective actions often challenge existing laws, policies, and systems of power, and pushing for reforms that reflect the evolving values and needs of society
The right to protest and engage in collective action is a fundamental part of Canada's democratic system
Protected under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Values
Laws evolve as societal values shift
Impaired driving:
Once a common practice
Lobby groups pushed for harsher penalties
Smoking:
Widespread practice in the past
As health risks became known, laws limited smoking in public places
Smoking in public places became illegal in Ontario in 2006
Indigenous rights:
Indigenous groups began resisting intrusion on their lands
Oka Crisis (1990): Armed standoff between Mohawk people and Canadian Military
Wet’suwet’en protests: Indigenous group defending their land from an oil pipeline construction
Bill C-16:
Adds gender expression and gender identity to the Canadian Human Rights Act
Updates Criminal Code provisions on hate propaganda, incitement to genocide, and sentencing factors
Part C: Rights and Freedoms - In point form, identify the facts and details of the legal cases listed below and explain the importance of each case to Canadian law and/or its impact on Canadian law. For the exam - not all of the following topics will be on the exam. You will be given several options and you will have a choice - pick 3. Cases may include:
Case
Facts and Details
Importance to Canadian Law
R. v Oakes
David Oakes was charged with drug possession for trafficking
The law made him prove he didn’t intend to sell the drugs
He argued violated his right to be presumed innocent.
The SCC agreed that his rights were violated and said the law was unconstitutional
The law failed the test and the limitation on Oakes’ rights was not justified
Established the Oakes Test, which requires laws limiting rights to be justified, ensuring that rights under the Canadian Charter are protected
R. v Butler
In 1987, Donald Butler in Winnipeg was caught running a shop selling inappropriate videotapes, magazines, and sexual paraphernalia.
After the police shut down his shop, he found a way to reopen it.
In 1988, Butler was charged under the Criminal Code with multiple counts of selling sexual material and exposing it to the public.
He argued that his products were a form of self-expression, which falls under Section 2 of the Charter (Freedom of Expression).
However, this was also seen as a violation of Section 1 of the Charter, the Reasonable Limits Clause
In this case, the courts found that Butler’s freedom of expression could be limited
His materials were considered inappropriate for public viewing.
In 1992, the Supreme Court used the Oakes Test to decide whether the criminal ban on selling inappropriate materials violated freedom of expression.
The Court concluded that the restriction on freedom of expression was justified in this case.
At the time, there was growing concern about the spread of pornography and its harmful effects (particularly in promoting gender inequality)
Feminist groups argued that explicit materials that portrayed women in degrading or violent ways which was harmful to society
The use of the Oakes Test to determine that limiting freedom of expression was justified in cases involving harmful material, balancing individual rights with societal harm concerns.
R. v Big M Drug Mart
The Federal Lord's Day Act (from 1906) prohibited sports, entertainment, and shopping on Sundays.
R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd. was accused of selling merchandise on a Sunday.
Supreme Court appeal (April 24, 1985): Ruled the Act violated freedom of religion (s2 of the Charter).
The court found that the Lord's Day Act enforced Christian religion and violated Canada’s freedom of religion (as claimed in the charter)
Emphasized the importance of protecting individuals from laws that impose religious practices on society and reinforcing religious freedom in Canada.
R. v Keegstra
James Keegstra was a high school teacher in Alberta
Taught his students anti-Semitic views
Including Holocaust denial
Conspiracy theories about Jewish people controlling global institutions
Keegstra was charged under Section 319(2) of the Criminal Code
Prohibits "willfully promoting hatred" against an identifiable group.
Argued that the law violated his Section 2 Charter right (freedom of expression)
The Supreme Court ruled that Section 319 of the Criminal Code violated freedom of expression but was a justifiable limit
Under Section 1 of the Charter.
This case set a precedent that hate speech laws in Canada are constitutional, and reinforced the idea that freedom of expression must be balanced
Upheld hate speech laws in Canada, confirming that limits on freedom of expression are justified when they protect society from harmful and discriminatory views
R. v Morgentaler
Publicly advocated for reproductive rights
Showed his commitment to a cause that a lot of people considered to be controversial
Risking legal repercussions for his beliefs
Argued that the abortion laws were unconstitutional
They infringed on women’s rights to life, liberty, and security of the person (which was guaranteed under Section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms)
Stood up against laws that were controlling women's bodies
The Supreme Court's decision was a direct result of Dr. Morgentaler’s movement to change
It set a legal precedent
Led to the Supreme Court striking down Canada's abortion laws, affirming women’s rights to life, liberty, and security under Section 7 of the Charter, and setting a legal precedent for reproductive rights.
Rodriguez v. B.C.
Canadian woman diagnosed with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS)
In 1993 she looked for legal permission to end her life with the assistance of a physician
Argued that the Criminal Code’s prohibition on assisted suicide violated her rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms
The Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that the existing law prohibiting assisted suicide did not violate the Charter
It was a slippery slope
Chance that caretakers will take the life of a severely disabled person
The Rodriguez case created discussions around legally assisted suicide
It set the groundwork for the Supreme Court's ruling in Carter v. Canada, which legalized physician-assisted dying
Sparked discussions on assisted suicide and laid the groundwork for the Carter v. Canada case, which ultimately legalized physician-assisted dying in Canada
Roncarelli v. Duplessis
Roncarelli, lived in Montreal and operated a cafe. He was also Jehovah’s Witness
Roncarelli regularly posted bail for other Jehovah’s Witnesses who were arrested for breaching laws prohibiting the distribution of their publications.
Duplessis - the Premier of Quebec ordered the cancellation of Roncarelli’s liquor license
Roncarelli took his case to the Supreme Court who awarded him damages
The court ruled that the premier was out the scope of his legal authority when he cancelled Roncarelli’s liquor license
The significance of this case is the fact that common law principles were applied by the courts to fix a breach in someone's civil rights and that this ruling continued in light of no formal written rights protection (It showed that we had a been able to make rulings that protect rights of others even before written laws were put into place)
Demonstrated the application of common law principles to protect civil rights, even before formal written protections like the Charter, ensuring that individuals are not subject to arbitrary government actions.
R v Hufsky
In 1987, Mr. Hufsky was stopped by police during a random traffic check.
The officer suspected he was drunk and asked for a breath test
Hufsky refused
He was charged for refusing and fined
Hufsky argued that his charter rights in section 9 (the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned) and section 10 (people have a chance to challenge the lawfulness of an arrest or detention) were violated.
This resulted in the supreme court using section 1 to see whether limiting his rights in section 9 and 10 was justified.
They did this with the oakes test
They came to the conclusion that it was justified because it helped keep roads safe
It upheld the justifiable limits on Charter rights using the Oakes Test, emphasizing the importance of balancing individual rights with public safety, particularly on the roads
Quebec v Ford
The law required commercial signs to have French, which violated freedom of expression.
This prohibition couldn't be justified under section 9.1 of the Québec Charter or section 1 of the Canadian Charter.
No evidence showed that exclusivity was necessary.
The law involved Sections 58 and 69 of the French Language Act
Highlighted the balance between language laws and freedom of expression
M v. H
In 1999, M and H, two women in a same-sex relationship, decided to end their relationship.
M wanted to claim spousal support from H under the Family Law Act (FLA)
She was not eligible because same-sex relationships were not recognized as spousal under the law at the time
To fix this, the words "man" and "woman" were removed from the definition of "spouse"
It was replaced with "two persons"
This made same-sex couples eligible for the same legal rights.
The main issue in this case was equality rights.
M argued that her rights were violated under Section 15 of the Charter (meant to ensures that everyone is treated equally under the law)
The Supreme Court of Canada recognized that excluding same-sex couples from the definition of "spouse" was discriminatory and unconstitutional, as it violated their equality rights
3Led to the recognition of same-sex couples as equal under the law, affirming equality rights under Section 15 of the Charter and ensuring they had access to the same legal rights as heterosexual couples
Eldridge v. BC
Deaf individuals challenged the lack of sign language interpretation in British Columbia's publicly funded health care system
They argued that the failure to provide accommodations for their disability created a systemic barrier and was discriminatory
The Court unanimously ruled that this violated Section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
“Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination.”
The ruling said that governments have a duty to ensure accessible public services by accommodating the needs of individuals with disabilities
Has a lasting impact on policies across Canada
Today, public services like health care, education, and transportation are inclusive and accessible for individuals with disabilities
The case set a legal precedent
Confirmed that true equality may require governments to accommodate the needs of marginalized groups
Governments must ensure there are accessible services for those with disabilities.
Established that governments must accommodate the needs of individuals with disabilities, ensuring equal access to public services and setting a legal precedent for inclusive policies in Canada
Andrew v Law Society of BC
Andrew was a lawyer who had been previously disbarred by the Law Society of BC for unethical conduct
the Law Society had the right to refuse Mr. Andrew’s application for reinstatement based on his past misconduct
The Supreme Court ruled that the Law Society could consider the lawyer’s history of misconduct when making decisions about reinstatement
It also acknowledged that the Law Society needed to balance fairness and rehabilitation
Established that governments must accommodate the needs of individuals with disabilities, ensuring equal access to public services and setting a legal precedent for inclusive policies in Canada
Part D: Essay Question (Examples) - Answer the question in a five paragraph essay format.
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms has had a profound impact on the judiciary and the role of judges in Canadian law. Is this good? How? Explain.
Intro
Point 1: Empowerment of Judges to Protect Individual Rights
Judges can declare laws unconstitutional if they violate rights in the Charter.
Judges ensuring laws do not infringe on basic human rights
Point 2: Judicial Review and Constitutional Interpretation
The Charter enables judicial review
Judges assess if laws are constitutional.
Judges have the power to strike down unconstitutional laws.
Helps to ensure laws reflect contemporary values and societal standards.
Point 3: Accountability and Balance of Power
The Charter promotes a balance of power between the branches of government.
Judges act as a check on the legislative and executive branches.
Judicial oversight ensures laws respect individual rights and prevents abuses of power.
Conclusion
Imagine you are explaining to someone our course and law in Canada (in general). What are the three most important elements in the study of law in Canada? In other words, what would you say are the three most essential things to understanding law in Canada?
Intro
Point 1: The Constitution
The Constitution is the supreme law in Canada, defining the powers of government and the rights of individuals.
It includes documents like the British North America Act and the Constitution Act of 1982.
Importance: The Constitution sets the framework for all laws in Canada, making it crucial to understanding legal structure and rights.
Point 2: The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
The Charter guarantees fundamental rights and freedoms for Canadians, such as freedom of expression, equality, and legal rights.
It is central to human rights protection and judicial review.
Importance: Understanding the Charter is key to understanding how laws protect individual freedoms and how they are interpreted by the courts.
Point 3: The Role of Courts in Interpreting and Applying the Law
Courts have the authority to interpret laws, apply them to specific cases, and ensure they align with constitutional principles.
Judicial review ensures laws comply with the Constitution and Charter.
Importance: Courts are essential in resolving legal conflicts and maintaining justice by balancing individual rights and public interests.
Conclusion
What would you argue are the three most critical legal cases studied in our class.? Explain each case and explain why each case is important and essential in the study of Canadian law.
Intro
Point 1: R. v. Oakes (1986)
Summary: The case clarified how the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms should be applied when a law limits rights, using the Oakes Test to balance rights and public interests.
Importance: The Oakes Test set a significant standard for determining whether a limitation on Charter rights is justifiable under Section 1.
Why essential: This case is crucial in shaping how the courts assess the limits of Charter rights and how governments can justify those limits.
Point 2: R. v. Big M Drug Mart (1985)
Summary: The case ruled that the Federal Lord’s Day Act, which prohibited certain activities on Sundays, violated freedom of religion as guaranteed by the Charter.
Importance: It reaffirmed the principle that laws must not unduly impose one religion’s practices on others and that individuals have the freedom to practice or not practice their religion.
Why essential: This case is key to understanding the relationship between laws and religious freedoms in Canada, and it contributed to the legal interpretation of Section 2(a) of the Charter.
Point 3: Rodriguez v. British Columbia (1993)
Summary: The case challenged the prohibition of assisted suicide under the Criminal Code, raising questions about rights to life and personal autonomy.
Importance: Though the court upheld the law, it set the stage for the later Carter v. Canada decision, which legalized physician-assisted suicide.
Why essential: The case highlights the evolving nature of legal interpretations and the role of the courts in addressing complex ethical issues regarding individual rights.
Conclusion