February 11

Law 30: 03 Divisions of Law

Links and resources to help support the discussion of the levels of law in Canada.

  1. Common Law/Case Law
    1. Here’s What Judges Will Consider When Sentencing McArthur and Bissonnette (concurrent/consecutive/precedent) Feb 06, 2019 CBC
    2. Appeal Court to Rule in Case Involving Legal Definition of Death Feb 11, 2019 CBC
    3. Search Warrant’s Impossible Execution Date Should Have Been Noticed (Nova Scotia 2016 – appealed 2018)
  2. Statute Law
    1. Canlii Statute Law Acts – website lists government Acts
    2. Cannabis Act – 2018-06-21
    3. Bills Put Forward by 42nd Parliament – started Dec 2015
    4. Nine Bills Passed by Parliament Before the Summer Break 2016
  3. Constitutional Law
    1. Five Supreme Court Cases That Could Reshape Canadian Law Oct 2018
    2. Thirty-five Charter Related Cases – verdicts continue to help clarify the meaning and application of the law
    3. Supreme Court Finds Teacher Guilty of Voyeurism (Feb 14, 2019)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Read/Summarize Activity: From either of the links above related to Charter cases, pick one, read it, and write a Comment to this blog post to summarize it for the class.

Image result for blog icon

 

 

 

Public vs Private Law Categories:

  • Media Bias website: from a list of Canadian media sources, check them for bias and accuracy to determine which news sources you’ll feel comfortable referencing through the course.
    • Globe and Mail
    • National Post
    • Global Media/CTV Media
    • Star Phoenix/Leader Post
    • CBC
    • Huffington Post Canada
  • Gathering News Articles per category – Socrative Activity


Posted February 11, 2019 by Waldner in category Law 30

7 thoughts on “Law 30: 03 Divisions of Law

  1. rainbowunicorns16

    The case relates to the Candian Elections Act, which used to state that no prisoners serving a two or more year prison sentence, did not have the right to vote at elections. Richard Suave challenged this law in the supreme court because the supreme court had no way of actually proving that denying a prisoners right to vote was nessacary. Because of this case, all prisoners over the age of eighteen now have the right to vote no matter how long their jail sentence is and it is now used as a way to teach the prisoners about democratic values of the Canadian state. In the end, the court also had confirmed that the right for all citizens to vote is a reflection of Canada’s constitutional commitment in the way to inherit and the worth and dignity of all Canadian citizens.

    Reply
  2. sandc17

    Case: R. v. Big M Drug Mart
    This case was appealed to the supreme court because the respondent, Big M Drug Mart, believed that the Lords Day Act that prohibits his store from operating on a Sunday violates the constitutional right to freedom of conscience and religion. This Act was likely created before the freedom of religion was added to the constitution, so a case like this was required to change the Act. The supreme court did decide that the Act violated the constitutional right to freedom of consistence and religion, since it required people to conform to one religion, Christianity, instead of being allowed to have your own beliefs

    Reply
  3. firbalishous

    The NFL and Bell vs Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunication Commission’s case is going to the Supreme Court of Canada because currently NFl and Bell have all the Canadian Super Bowl broadcasting rights and the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunication Commission’s is ending simultaneous substitution which allows Canadians to view American Super Bowl ads, Bell and NFL believe this isnt fair and they will lose revenue on this change,

    Reply
  4. kayflo

    The Edmonton Journal, a division of Southam Inc was investigated by the government. They wanted to search every file except those in the newsroom. The investigators gave no information on why they were there or why they had to search the files. Southam Inc challenged the event saying it went against the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure. It went to the Supreme Court and it was concluded that law enforcement needs a warrant of sorts from a judge in order for a search to take place. To obtain a warrant there must be reasonable and probable grounds. The court decided that the event violated Charter as they didn’t take the correct process in obtaining a warrant.

    Reply
  5. supershan22

    David Oakes was charged with the possession of narcotics under the Narcotics Control Act, this act assumes that the person has the narcotics for trafficking. David said his intentions were not to traffic them. David said the act violates his right to be presumed innocent util proven guilty. In the end the court came to the conclusion that it was not right to assume the person was trafficking narcotics just because they possessed them.

    Reply
  6. heresjohnny2

    Saskatchewan Federation of Labour v. Saskatchewan

    The government of Saskatchewan introduced two statutes in 2007, The Public Service Essential Services Act and The Trade Union Amendment Act. Both became law in 2008. The act of the unions restricts employees to strike against employers. The Saskatchewan federation of labour challanged the unions of its constitutionality. the judges verdict of the trial was the right to strike is a fundamental freedom of the charter. the act of PESESA prohibiting strikes, violates section 2 fundamental freedoms of the charter

    Reply
  7. jaxson217

    I read Hate Speech Towards Targeted Groups. In this I learned that the Supreme Court will take in a wide spread of different cases, important or small; not only to figure out the just outcome of the case, but to set a standard for lower courts if they are to ever face similar cases. A teacher from Alberta was teaching his students that the terrible acts of the holicost was all set up by Jews to create a sense of sympathy. When I first read this I thought to myself, tell him not to lie and fire him. After reading further and seeing the Supreme Court deal with the problem in serious and relatable matter I realized why it might be important to deal with problems before they grow and are seen acceptable.

    Reply

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*