Please give an outline of your case, its background, its resolution and the charter section to which it applies in a post below. Name your post with the case citation.
S. 8 – Search and Seizure (page 51) R v. Mann, 2004 SCC 52 (CanLII) - In December 2000, in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Philip Mann was asked to receive a pat down by two police officers responding to a local B&E. Mann consented to a weapons pat down , and during the search, one of the officers felt something soft in Mann’s pocket. Though Mann had only consented to a pat down, the officers infringed upon Mann’s right to not be subject to an unreasonable search and seizure, and felt in his pocket. They found marijuana and two valium pills. After being charged with illegal possession and trafficking of narcotics, Mann was acquitted by the judge, who said that, since the narcotics had been found in an illegal manner, charging Mann would be illegal. However, the Crown was not satisfied with the results of the trial and ordered a new trial. Mann took his case to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court of Canada eventually found him not guilty due to illegally obtained evidence, because Mann had only consented to a weapons pat-down – which did not include reaching into his pockets. The Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) found that the search of Mann’s pockets was in violation of S. 8 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which states that “Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure”.
Sauvé v. Canada (Chief Electoral Officer), 2002 SCC 68 (CanLII)
Sauvé was a prisoner of a federal prison. He challenged a part of the Canada Election Act, this part of the act denied federal inmates serving a sentence of more than two years the right to vote in federal elections. The reason for Sauvé’s challenge was because the Supreme Court of Canada stated that this law took away Sauvé’s right to vote, and it could not be justified by section 1 of the charter.
This applies to section 3 of the charter of rights and freedoms, that every citizens of Canada has the right to vote in an election of members of the House of Commons or of a legislation assembly and to be qualified for membership therein.
This case was resolved when the court overturned the prior decision, As a result of the decision; all adult citizens living in Canada are now able to vote.
Rodriguez v. British Columbia (Attorney General), 1993 CanLII 75 (S.CC), Page 49
Background:
Sue Rodriguez was diagnosed with a terminal illness, Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis, in 1992 that would soon leave her vulnerable with around three years to live. She began a fight to strike down section 241 (b) of the criminal code, which made assisted suicide illegal. She believed that it violated section 7(the right to “life, liberty, and security of the person), 12 (protection against “cruel and unusually punishment”), and 15(equality before under the law and equal protection under the law”) of the Canadian charter of rights and freedoms.
Outline:
After a period of time, she felt unable to continue her life in a satisfactory manner. She wanted someone to assist her in suicide. Under the charter, it states that its not illegal to commit suicide if you are the only person involved. It is illegal for a person to assist in the suicide. Rodriguez thought that her right to life, liberty, and security of the person was being infringed while she was being denied assisted suicide. The Supreme Court kept the law and shut down the case. The court referred back to the charter in which we have the right to life but not the right to death in the hopes of preserving life. In the end, Sue Rodriguez committed suicide with the help with an anonymous doctor on February 12, 1994.
Resolution:
The Supreme Court of Canada kept the law as it was on assisted suicide and the criminal code. The Resolution was that Sue Rodriguez committed suicide in 1994 with the assistance of anonymous doctor.
The charter guarantees language rights and it protects the provinces and Canada’s official languages in all government institutions. Canada declares that its two official languages are English and French. All the laws in Canada are written in these two languages.
Arsenault-Cameron v. Prince Edward Island, 2000 SCC 1 (CanLII)
Parents living in Summerside, Prince Edward Island requested to the French language School Board that their children receive an education in French. However the minister of education denied their request to set up the school. A resolution was arranged where students would take an hour bus ride to an existing one. The charter section to which this case applies to is 16-22.
Sam, Dave & Jonah. In 2002 Sam, Dave & Jonah. Multani 2006 SCC 6
In 2002, the Quebec supreme court ruled that Mr. Multani be allowed to wear his religious item, A Kirpan. However there were certain rules around this that limited the kirpan. It could only be wooden and concealed, the real one being metal. While the courts wanted to support Multani's religious belief, they did not want to compromise school boards safety. The Qeubec supreme court eventually banned all kirpans in schools. Multani's family appealed the case in March of 2006. The courts soon looked at many factors as to why they should allow him to carry his kirpan or not. The courts decided Multani genuinely believe he had to wear it at all times and it had to be metal. The courts soon stated that it clearly violated his freedom of religion and allowed him to wear his religious item.
Section 8 Page 50 in text book R. V. A.M, 2008 SCC 19 (CanLII) Case Outline- The police had conducted a unnecessary search and seizure when they entered a high school, with sniffer dogs. They did not have a search warrant or reason to search the school for drugs. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada. The court ruled that the surprise drug search was against section 8 in the charter. It violated the students and teachers privacy. Background- On November 7 2002 at St. Patrick high school in Sarnia, Ontario. The police accepted a long standing invitation by the principle for a drug search. Students were told to keep backpacks in their lockers and late comers must put their backpacks in the gym. Police came in with sniffer dogs and one of the dogs had bitten a knapsack. The police opened the knapsack and found narcotics. The student had been charged with possession of Marijuana and Psilocybin for the purpose of trafficking.
Charkaoui v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) 2007 SCC 9 (TEXTBOOK pg 55) In May 2003, Adil Charkaoui, Mohamed Harkat and Hassan Almrei were arrested under security certificates. They were accused of having connections to the Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups, but never charged with criminal offenses. Instead of going through a proper legal procedure, they were not charged with anything when they were detained. They defended themselves in saying that they weren’t able to go through a proper trial, or have a representative go to the hearings. In December 2003, the Federal Court of Canada proclaimed the security certificates to be valid. The detainees then went to the Federal Court of Appeal and then to the SCC. Chakaoui and Harkat were later released on bail. However, Almrei went to an immigration holding center and wasn’t granted bail. In 2007, the SCC struck down parts of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act because it violated section 7 of the Charter, and the procedures for reviewing the detention also violated section 9 and 10 of the charter. The detainees also were refused the opportunity for a fair hearing. Not only that, but they were also refused the right to understand the full case against them, so they weren’t able to completely defend the charges. The court later declared that the fact that the detainees weren’t detained without a review for over 120 days after the security certificate was deemed reasonable was a violation of sections 9 and 10( c ) of the Charter. In the end, the federal government was given one year to construct a new law.
Charter sections: 7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. 9. Everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned. 1. Everyone has the right on arrest or detention
Background In February 1999, the Ontario police received a tip that Walter Tessling was running a marijuana growing operation. On Tessling’s property the police checked with Ontario Hydro for large amounts of electricity usage, which was common in criminal drug growing operations. However they failed to find any unusual power usage. They then went on with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) and flew over Tessling's property with a Forward Looking Infra-Red ("FLIR") camera and got a heat profile of the land without a warrant. Using the results from the FLIR profile, the police were able to get a warrant that allowed them to enter and search Tesslings property. During the search they found scales, freezer bags, some guns and marijuana that was estimated to be worth in-between $15,000 to $22,500. Tessling was then charged with drug trafficking and possession of weapons.
Outline of the case In December 2000 Tessling appealed. At trial, he argued that the FLIR scan and the RCMP helicopter was in violation of his right and freedoms under S.8, which states that “Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure”. Tesslings previous conviction was overturned by the provincial Court of Appeal. It was concluded that the search was illegal and that the evidence of the marijuana should have been excluded under S.24 (b), which states that any evidence that brings the administration of justice into disrepute should be excluded from the trial.
Resolution The issue was “was whether the use of a thermal imagery such as the FLIR camera violates the right against unreasonable search and seizure.” It was brought before the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) and held that the evidence obtained and the methods by which it was obtained were acceptable, (didn’t infringe on Tesslings privacy right nor was the search unreasonable). Tessling’s conviction was restored and he was sentenced to 18 months of trafficking of marijuana and possession of weapons.
S. 8 – Search and Seizure (page 51)
ReplyDeleteR v. Mann, 2004 SCC 52 (CanLII) -
In December 2000, in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Philip Mann was asked to receive a pat down by two police officers responding to a local B&E. Mann consented to a weapons pat down , and during the search, one of the officers felt something soft in Mann’s pocket. Though Mann had only consented to a pat down, the officers infringed upon Mann’s right to not be subject to an unreasonable search and seizure, and felt in his pocket. They found marijuana and two valium pills.
After being charged with illegal possession and trafficking of narcotics, Mann was acquitted by the judge, who said that, since the narcotics had been found in an illegal manner, charging Mann would be illegal.
However, the Crown was not satisfied with the results of the trial and ordered a new trial. Mann took his case to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court of Canada eventually found him not guilty due to illegally obtained evidence, because Mann had only consented to a weapons pat-down – which did not include reaching into his pockets.
The Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) found that the search of Mann’s pockets was in violation of S. 8 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which states that “Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure”.
S. 3 Democratic Rights of Citizens
ReplyDeleteSauvé v. Canada (Chief Electoral Officer), 2002 SCC 68 (CanLII)
Sauvé was a prisoner of a federal prison. He challenged a part of the Canada Election Act, this part of the act denied federal inmates serving a sentence of more than two years the right to vote in federal elections. The reason for Sauvé’s challenge was because the Supreme Court of Canada stated that this law took away Sauvé’s right to vote, and it could not be justified by section 1 of the charter.
This applies to section 3 of the charter of rights and freedoms, that every citizens of Canada has the right to vote in an election of members of the House of Commons or of a legislation assembly and to be qualified for membership therein.
This case was resolved when the court overturned the prior decision, As a result of the decision; all adult citizens living in Canada are now able to vote.
Rodriguez v. British Columbia (Attorney General), 1993 CanLII 75 (S.CC), Page 49
ReplyDeleteBackground:
Sue Rodriguez was diagnosed with a terminal illness, Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis, in 1992 that would soon leave her vulnerable with around three years to live. She began a fight to strike down section 241 (b) of the criminal code, which made assisted suicide illegal. She believed that it violated section 7(the right to “life, liberty, and security of the person), 12 (protection against “cruel and unusually punishment”), and 15(equality before under the law and equal protection under the law”) of the Canadian charter of rights and freedoms.
Outline:
After a period of time, she felt unable to continue her life in a satisfactory manner. She wanted someone to assist her in suicide. Under the charter, it states that its not illegal to commit suicide if you are the only person involved. It is illegal for a person to assist in the suicide. Rodriguez thought that her right to life, liberty, and security of the person was being infringed while she was being denied assisted suicide. The Supreme Court kept the law and shut down the case. The court referred back to the charter in which we have the right to life but not the right to death in the hopes of preserving life. In the end, Sue Rodriguez committed suicide with the help with an anonymous doctor on February 12, 1994.
Resolution:
The Supreme Court of Canada kept the law as it was on assisted suicide and the criminal code. The Resolution was that Sue Rodriguez committed suicide in 1994 with the assistance of anonymous doctor.
Language Rights
ReplyDeleteThe charter guarantees language rights and it protects the provinces and Canada’s official languages in all government institutions. Canada declares that its two official languages are English and French. All the laws in Canada are written in these two languages.
Arsenault-Cameron v. Prince Edward Island, 2000 SCC 1 (CanLII)
Parents living in Summerside, Prince Edward Island requested to the French language School Board that their children receive an education in French. However the minister of education denied their request to set up the school. A resolution was arranged where students would take an hour bus ride to an existing one. The charter section to which this case applies to is 16-22.
Sam, Dave & Jonah.
ReplyDeleteIn 2002 Sam, Dave & Jonah. Multani 2006 SCC 6
In 2002, the Quebec supreme court ruled that Mr. Multani be allowed to wear his religious item, A Kirpan. However there were certain rules around this that limited the kirpan. It could only be wooden and concealed, the real one being metal. While the courts wanted to support Multani's religious belief, they did not want to compromise school boards safety. The Qeubec supreme court eventually banned all kirpans in schools. Multani's family appealed the case in March of 2006. The courts soon looked at many factors as to why they should allow him to carry his kirpan or not. The courts decided Multani genuinely believe he had to wear it at all times and it had to be metal. The courts soon stated that it clearly violated his freedom of religion and allowed him to wear his religious item.
Section 8
ReplyDeletePage 50 in text book
R. V. A.M, 2008 SCC 19 (CanLII)
Case Outline-
The police had conducted a unnecessary search and seizure when they entered a high school, with sniffer dogs. They did not have a search warrant or reason to search the school for drugs. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada. The court ruled that the surprise drug search was against section 8 in the charter. It violated the students and teachers privacy.
Background-
On November 7 2002 at St. Patrick high school in Sarnia, Ontario. The police accepted a long standing invitation by the principle for a drug search. Students were told to keep backpacks in their lockers and late comers must put their backpacks in the gym. Police came in with sniffer dogs and one of the dogs had bitten a knapsack. The police opened the knapsack and found narcotics. The student had been charged with possession of Marijuana and Psilocybin for the purpose of trafficking.
-Anna and LIzzie
Charkaoui v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) 2007 SCC 9 (TEXTBOOK pg 55)
ReplyDeleteIn May 2003, Adil Charkaoui, Mohamed Harkat and Hassan Almrei were arrested under security certificates. They were accused of having connections to the Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups, but never charged with criminal offenses. Instead of going through a proper legal procedure, they were not charged with anything when they were detained. They defended themselves in saying that they weren’t able to go through a proper trial, or have a representative go to the hearings. In December 2003, the Federal Court of Canada proclaimed the security certificates to be valid. The detainees then went to the Federal Court of Appeal and then to the SCC. Chakaoui and Harkat were later released on bail. However, Almrei went to an immigration holding center and wasn’t granted bail. In 2007, the SCC struck down parts of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act because it violated section 7 of the Charter, and the procedures for reviewing the detention also violated section 9 and 10 of the charter. The detainees also were refused the opportunity for a fair hearing. Not only that, but they were also refused the right to understand the full case against them, so they weren’t able to completely defend the charges. The court later declared that the fact that the detainees weren’t detained without a review for over 120 days after the security certificate was deemed reasonable was a violation of sections 9 and 10( c ) of the Charter. In the end, the federal government was given one year to construct a new law.
Charter sections:
7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.
9. Everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned.
1. Everyone has the right on arrest or detention
*10 not 1
DeleteR. V. Tessling, 2004 SCC 67 (CanLll)
ReplyDeleteJahrohna, Samira, and Rafaela
Background
In February 1999, the Ontario police received a tip that Walter Tessling was running a marijuana growing operation. On Tessling’s property the police checked with Ontario Hydro for large amounts of electricity usage, which was common in criminal drug growing operations. However they failed to find any unusual power usage. They then went on with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) and flew over Tessling's property with a Forward Looking Infra-Red ("FLIR") camera and got a heat profile of the land without a warrant.
Using the results from the FLIR profile, the police were able to get a warrant that allowed them to enter and search Tesslings property.
During the search they found scales, freezer bags, some guns and marijuana that was estimated to be worth in-between $15,000 to $22,500.
Tessling was then charged with drug trafficking and possession of weapons.
Outline of the case
In December 2000 Tessling appealed. At trial, he argued that the FLIR scan and the RCMP helicopter was in violation of his right and freedoms under S.8, which states that “Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure”. Tesslings previous conviction was overturned by the provincial Court of Appeal. It was concluded that the search was illegal and that the evidence of the marijuana should have been excluded under S.24 (b), which states that any evidence that brings the administration of justice into disrepute should be excluded from the trial.
Resolution
The issue was “was whether the use of a thermal imagery such as the FLIR camera violates the right against unreasonable search and seizure.” It was brought before the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) and held that the evidence obtained and the methods by which it was obtained were acceptable, (didn’t infringe on Tesslings privacy right nor was the search unreasonable). Tessling’s conviction was restored and he was sentenced to 18 months of trafficking of marijuana and possession of weapons.