<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Charter Cases</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.chartercases.com/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.chartercases.com</link>
	<description>Exploring Canada&#039;s Charter of Rights and Freedoms</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 07 Apr 2013 07:52:41 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>R. v. Mailhot, 2013 SCC 17</title>
		<link>http://www.chartercases.com/r-v-mailhot-2013-scc-17/</link>
		<comments>http://www.chartercases.com/r-v-mailhot-2013-scc-17/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Apr 2013 05:54:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>jmaddock</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Section 11(d): Presumption of Innocence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Section 11(f): Trial by Jury]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Section 11: Legal Rights]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chartercases.com/?p=370</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In a brief but meaningful decision rendered March 28, 2013, the Supreme Court of Canada insisted on a new trial for Jean Philippe Mailhot, an accused individual whose right to a fair trial had been compromised by comments of the trial judge during the charge to the jury. <a href="http://www.chartercases.com/r-v-mailhot-2013-scc-17/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.chartercases.com/r-v-mailhot-2013-scc-17/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>R. v. TELUS Communications Co., 2013 SCC 16</title>
		<link>http://www.chartercases.com/r-v-telus-communications-co-2013-scc-16/</link>
		<comments>http://www.chartercases.com/r-v-telus-communications-co-2013-scc-16/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Apr 2013 05:53:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>jmaddock</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Section 8: Search & Seizure]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chartercases.com/?p=368</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The telecommunications carrier, Telus, kept a backup of all text messages sent over its wireless network, potentially allowing customers to recover messages which had been accidentally deleted. Police had obtained a general warrant to access this database for the purpose of an investigation involving two Telus subscriber. Telus applied to quash the warrant, arguing that it is unlawful to intercept a private communication without specific wiretap authorization under Section VI of the Criminal Code. <a href="http://www.chartercases.com/r-v-telus-communications-co-2013-scc-16/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.chartercases.com/r-v-telus-communications-co-2013-scc-16/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Saskatchewan (Human Rights Commission) v. Whatcott, 2013 SCC 11</title>
		<link>http://www.chartercases.com/saskatchewan-human-rights-commission-v-whatcott-2013-scc-11/</link>
		<comments>http://www.chartercases.com/saskatchewan-human-rights-commission-v-whatcott-2013-scc-11/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Apr 2013 05:50:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>jmaddock</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Section 2(a): Freedom of Religion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Section 2(b): Freedom of Expression]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Section 2: Fundamental Freedoms]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chartercases.com/?p=364</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Whatcott case was brought to the Supreme Court of Canada on appeal from the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, which had found that a number of pamphlets critical of homosexual behaviour did not meet the test for “hate speech” under Saskatchewan’s Human Rights Code. <a href="http://www.chartercases.com/saskatchewan-human-rights-commission-v-whatcott-2013-scc-11/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.chartercases.com/saskatchewan-human-rights-commission-v-whatcott-2013-scc-11/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Quebec (Attorney General) v. A, 2013 SCC 5</title>
		<link>http://www.chartercases.com/quebec-attorney-general-v-a-2013-scc-5/</link>
		<comments>http://www.chartercases.com/quebec-attorney-general-v-a-2013-scc-5/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 Jan 2013 23:07:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>jmaddock</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Section 15: Equality Rights]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chartercases.com/?p=359</guid>
		<description><![CDATA["A", a "<em>de facto</em> spouse" who did not receive spousal support at the end of a seven-year conjugal relationship, challenged the constitutionality of Article 585 of the <em>Quebec Civil Code</em>, which establishes a right of spousal support in the event of divorce, but not in the event of the breakdown of a marriage-like relationship. This distinction, A argued, is contrary to the guarantee of equality in Section 15(1) of the <em>Charter of Rights and Freedoms</em>. <a href="http://www.chartercases.com/quebec-attorney-general-v-a-2013-scc-5/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.chartercases.com/quebec-attorney-general-v-a-2013-scc-5/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>R. v. N.S., 2012 SCC 72</title>
		<link>http://www.chartercases.com/r-v-n-s-2012-scc-72/</link>
		<comments>http://www.chartercases.com/r-v-n-s-2012-scc-72/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Dec 2012 03:34:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>jmaddock</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Section 11(d): Presumption of Innocence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Section 2(a): Freedom of Religion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Section 2: Fundamental Freedoms]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Section 7: Life, Liberty, & Security of the Person]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chartercases.com/?p=351</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[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. <a href="http://www.chartercases.com/r-v-n-s-2012-scc-72/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.chartercases.com/r-v-n-s-2012-scc-72/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Sriskandarajah v. United States of America, 2012 SCC 70</title>
		<link>http://www.chartercases.com/sriskandarajah-v-united-states-of-america-2012-scc-70/</link>
		<comments>http://www.chartercases.com/sriskandarajah-v-united-states-of-america-2012-scc-70/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 14 Dec 2012 03:16:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>jmaddock</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Section 6: Mobility Rights]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chartercases.com/?p=342</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Appellants, Suresh Sriskandarajah and Piratheepan Nadarajah, were alleged to have provided support to a Sri Lankan terrorist organization, the Tamil Tigers. Sriskandarajah was alleged to have provided the Tigers with warship design software and communications equipment, and to have assisted with money laundering. Nadarajah was accused of attempting to acquire weapons on behalf of the organization. Neither Defendant was prosecuted in Canada; rather, the United States sought execution of both to be prosecuted there. <a href="http://www.chartercases.com/sriskandarajah-v-united-states-of-america-2012-scc-70/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.chartercases.com/sriskandarajah-v-united-states-of-america-2012-scc-70/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>R. v. Khawaja, 2012 SCC 69</title>
		<link>http://www.chartercases.com/r-v-khawaja-2012-scc-69/</link>
		<comments>http://www.chartercases.com/r-v-khawaja-2012-scc-69/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 14 Dec 2012 03:00:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>jmaddock</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Section 2(b): Freedom of Expression]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Section 2(d): Freedom of Association]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Section 2: Fundamental Freedoms]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chartercases.com/?p=347</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In <em>R. v. Khawaja</em>, a companion case heard alongside Sriskandarajah v. United States of America, the Supreme Court of Canada considered the constitutional argument of convicted terrorist conspirator, Mohammad Momin Khawaja. <a href="http://www.chartercases.com/r-v-khawaja-2012-scc-69/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.chartercases.com/r-v-khawaja-2012-scc-69/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>R. v. Aucoin, 2012 SCC 66</title>
		<link>http://www.chartercases.com/r-v-aucoin-2012-scc-66/</link>
		<comments>http://www.chartercases.com/r-v-aucoin-2012-scc-66/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 Nov 2012 03:13:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>jmaddock</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Section 24: Enforcement of Rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Section 8: Search & Seizure]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chartercases.com/?p=340</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Appellant had been detained for two Motor Vehicle Act offences, namely using a license plate that was not registered to his vehicle and exceeding the legal blood alcohol limit. While detained, Aucoin was subject to a search which resulted in the finding of ecstasy and cocaine. He was convicted of possession of a controlled substance for the purpose of trafficking. <a href="http://www.chartercases.com/r-v-aucoin-2012-scc-66/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.chartercases.com/r-v-aucoin-2012-scc-66/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>R. v. Nedelcu, 2012 SCC 59</title>
		<link>http://www.chartercases.com/r-v-nedelcu-2012-scc-59/</link>
		<comments>http://www.chartercases.com/r-v-nedelcu-2012-scc-59/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Nov 2012 23:48:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>jmaddock</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Section 13: Incriminating Testimony from Another Proceeding]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chartercases.com/?p=337</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Respondent, Marius Nedelcu, had been convicted of dangerous driving causing bodily harm and impaired driving causing bodily harm after a serious motorcycle accident in which his passenger sustained a brain injury. The matter was the subject of both civil and criminal proceedings, in which Mr. Nedelcu gave inconsistent testimony. In civil examination for discovery, he claimed that he had no memory of the accident. In the criminal trial, he testified in detail and claimed to remember 90 to 95 percent of what happened. The question on appeal was whether the conviction violated Mr. Nedelcu’s right not to have inconsistent incriminating testimony from another proceeding used against him in a criminal proceeding. <a href="http://www.chartercases.com/r-v-nedelcu-2012-scc-59/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.chartercases.com/r-v-nedelcu-2012-scc-59/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>R. v. Dineley, 2012 SCC 58</title>
		<link>http://www.chartercases.com/r-v-dineley-2012-scc-58/</link>
		<comments>http://www.chartercases.com/r-v-dineley-2012-scc-58/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 02 Nov 2012 00:20:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>jmaddock</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Section 11(d): Presumption of Innocence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Section 11: Legal Rights]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chartercases.com/?p=330</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Dineley was heard as a companion case alongside <em><a href="http://www.chartercases.com/r-v-st-onge-lamoureux-2012-scc-57/">R. v. St Onge Lamoureux</a></em> and involved an analysis of whether legislative amendments to Canada’s impaired driving laws could operate retrospectively, thereby preventing the accused from calling an expert witness to cast doubt on Breathalyzer results. The amendments in question only became law during the course of Mr. Dineley’s trial. <a href="http://www.chartercases.com/r-v-dineley-2012-scc-58/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.chartercases.com/r-v-dineley-2012-scc-58/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
