Asia, Anna, Mildri, Jabeen, Hannah Ontario Human Rights Commission and Harbhajan Singh Pandori v. Peel Board of Education (1991) Pandori, a teacher with the Peel Board of Education, was as a Khalsa Sikh required to wear a kirpan everywhere. A kirpan is a ceremonial dagger. However, when the Board began to increase restrictions on weapons, Pandori was told that he would no longer be able to wear the kirpan to work. Believing that his right to freedom of religion had been violated, Pandori took his case to the Ontario Human Rights Commission. A Board of Inquiry set up by the Ontario Human Rights Commission decided that the school board's policy was discriminatory and that Pandori must be allowed to wear the kirpan on school grounds subject to safety measures to prevent the kirpan from being removed from its sheath. The school board appealed this decision. In the end, it was decided that Pandori would be allowed to continue wearing the kirpan. This is an example of administrative law.
In April 1981, Canada’s upper and lower houses of Parliament passed a joint address to the British parliament (and Queen Elizabeth II) asking for amendments to the Canadian constitution. The amendments included an amending formula, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the patriation of the Canadian constitution. The patriation would allow all future amendments to be decided in Canada by its government. It would also give Canada control over dividing legal powers between federal and provincial governments. The amendment proposal did not have support from the provincial governments. 8 out of 10 provinces felt that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms limited their power and refused to ratify the proposals, three even sued the federal government.
Issues. The provincial governments had three main concerns that they wanted the Supreme Court of Canada to investigate. First, whether it would have a direct impact on the provincial government’s power. Second, whether the document was actually legal since it would amend the previous constitution without the input of the government. And lastly if a convention was needed so the federal government could win the agreement of the provinces in order to amend the constitution.
Decision The Supreme Court ruled on the three questions in this manner; for the first inquiry, the court had agreed. The amendment would have an effect on provincial powers and would change the relationship between the provinces and the federal government. Following the second question, the court has ruled that the federal government’s proposed action did fall into the boundaries of the constitutional law. Lastly, the supreme court ruled that the constitution convention existed and required a substantial measure of consent when asking to amend the constitutional that affected the powers.
Effects The result of the Supreme court decision was to force Prime Minister Trudeau to begin negotiations with provincial premiers regarding any potential changes to the Constitution. After a series of meetings with all 10 premiers and the PM 9 out of 10 approved submitting the Constitution Act to the British Parliament. Quebec refused to do so however the constitutional convention was not specified to be binding and therefore unanimity was not required.
Influence of Social and Political Philosophy Social movements and philosophies influence Canada’s laws. An example could be the public reaction of the Holocaust during World War II. This helped create the social movement that ultimately led to the creation of the Canadian Human Rights Act, 1977. Also the philosophy of Co-operative Commonwealth Federation Party, banded together during the Great Depression, had impacted the provincial and federation directly. This then impacted the social security, employment insurance and workers compensation benefits.
Facts: Chae was a front seat passenger in a car that was being driven by Min. Both men were intoxicated after drinking at a restaurant. Min failed to drive around the curve, and the card drove off into a ditch. Chae claimed to have suffered devastating injuries, one of which was a brain injury so severe that he would be unable to work again. Chae accused Min of negligence and sued him for damages of more than $2 million. Min was able to prove that Chae wasn’t wearing a seatbelt during the time of the accident, and that the fully functioning seatbelt would have cause him only minor injuries.
Issues: Chae was responsible for his own injuries because he knew Min was intoxicated and decided to not wear a seat belt. If Chae had been wearing a seatbelt the accident would have gave Chae whiplash instead of catastrophic injuries.
Decision: Chae was responsible for 75% of his injuries due to his knowledge of Min’s intoxication and not wearing a seat belt. Furthermore, he knew he was going home on a winding and unlit road. Chae was awarded $345,000, only 25% of his desired amount due to his negligence. This is an example of civil law.
WHEN ANTI SEMITISM BECAME INTOLERABLE Re Drummond Wren, 1945(HC, in Chambers) By: Safwaan, Mandeep, and Mahin In 1945 Mr. Drummond Wren bought land in Ontario, in the sale agreement it contained a "restrictive covenant" that he could not sell his land to Jews or persons with objectionable nationality. He objected to a judge that this restrictive covenant is invalid since it divided Canadians among religoius and ethnic groups and violated Ontario's Racial Discrimination Act. The judge declared the restrictive covenant void and of no effect. The judge looked at Ontario's Racial Discrimination Act, 1994, which prohibited anyone from displaying on their property "any notice, sign, symbol, emblem or other representation indicating discrimination or an intention to discriminate any person or any class of persons for any purpose because of ... race or creed." The judge felt he had a "moral duty" to help support national unity.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAsia, Anna, Mildri, Jabeen, Hannah
ReplyDeleteOntario Human Rights Commission and Harbhajan Singh Pandori v. Peel Board of Education (1991)
Pandori, a teacher with the Peel Board of Education, was as a Khalsa Sikh required to wear a kirpan everywhere. A kirpan is a ceremonial dagger. However, when the Board began to increase restrictions on weapons, Pandori was told that he would no longer be able to wear the kirpan to work. Believing that his right to freedom of religion had been violated, Pandori took his case to the Ontario Human Rights Commission. A Board of Inquiry set up by the Ontario Human Rights Commission decided that the school board's policy was discriminatory and that Pandori must be allowed to wear the kirpan on school grounds subject to safety measures to prevent the kirpan from being removed from its sheath. The school board appealed this decision. In the end, it was decided that Pandori would be allowed to continue wearing the kirpan.
This is an example of administrative law.
By Fraser, Paulu, Reazul & Sasha
ReplyDeleteIn April 1981, Canada’s upper and lower houses of Parliament passed a joint address to the British parliament (and Queen Elizabeth II) asking for amendments to the Canadian constitution. The amendments included an amending formula, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the patriation of the Canadian constitution. The patriation would allow all future amendments to be decided in Canada by its government. It would also give Canada control over dividing legal powers between federal and provincial governments. The amendment proposal did not have support from the provincial governments. 8 out of 10 provinces felt that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms limited their power and refused to ratify the proposals, three even sued the federal government.
Issues.
The provincial governments had three main concerns that they wanted the Supreme Court of Canada to investigate. First, whether it would have a direct impact on the provincial government’s power. Second, whether the document was actually legal since it would amend the previous constitution without the input of the government. And lastly if a convention was needed so the federal government could win the agreement of the provinces in order to amend the constitution.
Decision
The Supreme Court ruled on the three questions in this manner; for the first inquiry, the court had agreed. The amendment would have an effect on provincial powers and would change the relationship between the provinces and the federal government. Following the second question, the court has ruled that the federal government’s proposed action did fall into the boundaries of the constitutional law. Lastly, the supreme court ruled that the constitution convention existed and required a substantial measure of consent when asking to amend the constitutional that affected the powers.
Effects
The result of the Supreme court decision was to force Prime Minister Trudeau to begin negotiations with provincial premiers regarding any potential changes to the Constitution. After a series of meetings with all 10 premiers and the PM 9 out of 10 approved submitting the Constitution Act to the British Parliament. Quebec refused to do so however the constitutional convention was not specified to be binding and therefore unanimity was not required.
Influence of Social and Political Philosophy
Social movements and philosophies influence Canada’s laws. An example could be the public reaction of the Holocaust during World War II. This helped create the social movement that ultimately led to the creation of the Canadian Human Rights Act, 1977. Also the philosophy of Co-operative Commonwealth Federation Party, banded together during the Great Depression, had impacted the provincial and federation directly.
This then impacted the social security, employment insurance and workers compensation benefits.
Chae v. Min, 2001
ReplyDeleteBy: Liam, Randy, and Saajan
Facts:
Chae was a front seat passenger in a car that was being driven by Min. Both men were intoxicated after drinking at a restaurant. Min failed to drive around the curve, and the card drove off into a ditch. Chae claimed to have suffered devastating injuries, one of which was a brain injury so severe that he would be unable to work again. Chae accused Min of negligence and sued him for damages of more than $2 million. Min was able to prove that Chae wasn’t wearing a seatbelt during the time of the accident, and that the fully functioning seatbelt would have cause him only minor injuries.
Issues:
Chae was responsible for his own injuries because he knew Min was intoxicated and decided to not wear a seat belt. If Chae had been wearing a seatbelt the accident would have gave Chae whiplash instead of catastrophic injuries.
Decision:
Chae was responsible for 75% of his injuries due to his knowledge of Min’s intoxication and not wearing a seat belt. Furthermore, he knew he was going home on a winding and unlit road. Chae was awarded $345,000, only 25% of his desired amount due to his negligence.
This is an example of civil law.
WHEN ANTI SEMITISM BECAME INTOLERABLE
ReplyDeleteRe Drummond Wren, 1945(HC, in Chambers)
By: Safwaan, Mandeep, and Mahin
In 1945 Mr. Drummond Wren bought land in Ontario, in the sale agreement it contained a "restrictive covenant" that he could not sell his land to Jews or persons with objectionable nationality. He objected to a judge that this restrictive covenant is invalid since it divided Canadians among religoius and ethnic groups and violated Ontario's Racial Discrimination Act. The judge declared the restrictive covenant void and of no effect. The judge looked at Ontario's Racial Discrimination Act, 1994, which prohibited anyone from displaying on their property "any notice, sign, symbol, emblem or other representation indicating discrimination or an intention to discriminate any person or any class of persons for any purpose because of ... race or creed." The judge felt he had a "moral duty" to help support national unity.