Charter Cases: Section 7: Life, Liberty, & Security of the Person
R. v. N.S., 2012 SCC 72
Two accused persons stood charged with sexually assaulting N.S. When called to testify, N.S. stated that she wished to wear a niqab which covered her face, and which she insisted was a necessary part of her Muslim faith. Continue reading
R. v. Hill, 2012 ONSC 5050
Roland Hill challenged the constitutionality of Section 753(1.1) of the Criminal Code, arguing that it violated the presumption of innocence and principles of fundamental justice insofar as shifted the burden of proof onto convicted offenders to demonstrate that they should not be prosecuted as “dangerous offenders.” Continue reading
R. v. Bellusci, 2012 SCC 44
The Appellant, Riccardo Bellusci, had been charged with assault and intimidation of a justice system participant after an altercation with a prison guard while being transported from court to jail. Mr. Bellusci was acquitted of the assault charges and a judicial stay of proceedings was entered in regard to the “intimidation” charge: Continue reading
R. v. Roy, 2012 SCC 26
Although not decided on the basis of the Charter, this case provides valuable insight into the necessary fault requirement for a criminal conviction, breathing new meaning into the “principles of fundamental justice” stemming from our common law tradition, and later enshrined in Section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Continue reading
Charkaoui v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 SCC 9
The appellants in this case challenged Sections 77 to 85 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, which authorized the federal government to detain a permanent resident or refugee for national security reasons. Although detainees could challenge these so called “security certificates” in Federal Court, they were not entitled to review the evidence against them. Furthermore, once a Federal Court judge determined that the certificate was “reasonable” (on the basis of evidence that the accused could not see), there was no avenue of appeal or judicial review. Continue reading
Chaoulli v. Quebec (Attorney General), [2005] 1 S.C.R. 791
In Chaoulli v. Quebec, the Appellant Zeliotis was a patient who had not been able to acquire publicly funded medical care in a timely fashion, while the Appellant Chaoulli was a doctor willing and able to provide medical care outside of the public system. The Appellants challenged two pieces of Quebec legislation, s. 15 of the Health Insurance Act and s. 11 of the Hospital Insurance Act, as being inconsistent with s. 1 of the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms and s. 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Continue reading
R. v. Stinchcombe, [1991] 3 SCR 326
This case involved a lawyer who, during his trial for breach of trust, theft, and fraud, argued that the prosecution had not provided adequate disclosure for him to make a strong defence. Mr. Stinchcombe was convicted of fraud and breach of trust and this conviction was upheld by the Court of Appeal, but ultimately set aside by the Supreme Court of Canada, which accepted that contention that Crown disclosure had been incomplete. Continue reading
R. v. Rowbotham, 1988 CanLII 147 (ON CA)
In R. v. Rowbotham, ten Appellants challenged various convictions of conspiracy to import marijuana and hashish. Numerous grounds of appeal were argued, but what makes this a key case in Charter jurisprudence is the ground pursued by George and Laura Kononow, two unrepresented accused who argued that a lawyer should have been provided for them in order to protect their right to a fair trial. Continue reading
R. v. Morgentaler, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 30
Dr. Morgentaler and his co-defendants operated an abortion clinic which had provided abortion services contrary to Criminal Code provisions requiring a panel of doctors to certify abortions as “therapeutic” in order to be legal. Continue reading
Re B.C. Motor Vehicle Act, [1985] 2 SCR 486
This matter went to the Supreme Court of Canada as a reference case (i.e. a question asked of the courts by the government), and led to the determination that the section of the B.C. Motor Vehicle Act which made it an absolute liability offence to drive while prohibited was unconstitutional. Continue reading